COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LANGUAGES

DEPARTMENT OF MODERN LANGUAGES

OPTION OF TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETING

ACADEMIC YEAR: 2021-2022

TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF GOOGLE TRANSLATE

FROM ENGLISH TO KINYARWANDA

A Dissertation submitted to the School of Arts and

Languages, College of Arts and Social Sciences,
University of Rwanda in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Award of Bachelor’s Degree
in Translation and Interpreting.

Submitted by:

MUSHIMIYIMANA Nelson

Registration number: 220014521

Supervised by: Dr. Telesphore NGARAMBE

Co-supervisor: Mr. Eric DUSABIMANA

Huye, May, 2023

DECLARATION
I, MUSHIMIYIMANA Nelson, student at University of Rwanda (UR), Collage of Arts and
Social Sciences (CASS), School of Arts and Languages (SAL), Department of Modern
Languages (DML), in Option of Translation and Interpreting (TI), with student‟s registration
number 220014521, hereby, declare that, this Dissertation entitled “Translation Quality
Assessment of Google Translate from English to Kinyarwanda” submitted to the School of
Arts and Languages in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Award of Bachelor‟s
Degree in Translation and Interpreting at the University of Rwanda, is my own original work and
has not previously been submitted elsewhere in any academic institution or University for any
means or degree. In the case, where I cited other people‟s works, references are provided. I
personally conducted the research and wrote this dissertation under the supervision of Dr.
Telesphore NGARAMBE and Mr. Eric DUSABIMANA.

Student:

Signature…..

MUSHIMIYIMANA Nelson

Supervisors:

Signature………

Dr. Telesphore NGARAMBE

Co-supervisor:

Signature…………...

Mr. Eric DUSABIMANA

On …/5/2023

i
DEDICATION
Honestly, I dedicate this dissertation to:

My lovely mother

Darling IRADUKUNDA Yvette

COR organization and its board especially Robbie Macmillan, HAKIZIMANA Jean de Dieu,
Andrea Jagodić

Entire Staff of the University of Rwanda especially CASS, SAL, DML and all my level 3
classmates for they have been beyond classmates up to the biological brothers:

BYUMVUHORE Remy Maurice

HABINEZA Jean Claude

INGABIRE Aimée and

HISHAMUNDA Salvator

My Teachers at all level, lecturers and supervisors.

My brother BARIYANGA Sylvestre and his lovely wife UWANKWERA Françoise, they have
done all possible for me to complement my educational journey.

My brother and friend TUYISENGE Paul and his Fiancée Anne Marie MUGISHA

Lastly, I dedicate this research to all my friends, colleagues, relatives and forth for their
contributions, I am really proud of your all.

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Above all, I thank God who gave me opportunity to study.

“Education is a key” whoever supports or advises anyone to study is incredibly guiding him/her
to open a door of opportunities, chance and success toward bright future. It is in this regard that,
I want to thank and send my heartedly gratitude to everyone who did his/her utmost throughout
my academic journey. Moreover, my gratitude goes to whoever had willingly contributed in this
research either directly or indirectly. Particularly my mother, COR organization, my friend
TUYISENGE Paul and his fiancé and my love IRADUKUNDA Yvette they pondered about my
life than I could expect.

I owe a special debt of gratitude to Dr.Telesphore Ngarambe and Mr. Eric DUSABIMANA
whose supervision work has been ultimate to completion of this dissertation. I owe much
gratitude to my family who provided me with financial and moral support in my studying
journey, your work is considerably noticed for they have supported me and showed me love to
my fullest.

In addition, I am grateful to all the lecturers of Translation in the option of Translation and
Interpreting, namely: Mr.Mbonankira Grégoire, Ms Uwizeyemariya Aloysie, Dr. Rudacogora
Augustin, Dr. Ruterana Pierre Canisius, Dr. Ngarambe Télesphore, Dr. Rusanganwa Joseph, Dr.
Ntawigira Patrice, Prof. Abubakar Katerega, Mr. Pascal BASIGAYABO, I am proud of you all.

Wholeheartedly, I owe gratitude to my classmates who have been supportive and cooperative
throughout my academic studies since I started studying at the University of Rwanda.

iii
ABSTRACT
This research entitled “Translation quality assessment of Google Translate from English
to Kinyarwanda” is based on the premise that the development of Computer-Assisted
Translation Tools as the main new translation technologies have globally brought a radical
change to the translator‟s working spirit. Both public and private translators are busy adopting
new evolved use of translation tools and machines. By their names, they are “Computer-Assisted
Translation Tools” which means they assist the human translators and do not replace them or
work independently. Thus, this research intends to assess the translation quality of Google
Translate from English to Kinyarwanda in order to propose appropriate solutions. Notably,
this research aims to reveal what those machines are capable to translate and what they are not
able to do, and what can be done to emprove their translation quality.

This research is comprised by different themes that reflect on the use of Google Translate while
translating from English into Kinyarwanda. Is Google Translate really infaillible in translation of
English and Kinyarwanda? In this research different texts were comparatively analysed to ensure
translation quality of GT from English into Kinyarwanda. This research found out that Machine
Translate is important in the translation process but it is far from replacing human translators.
This affirmation means that whenever a translator is assigned a translation task, the preliminary
idea that comes to their mind is Google Translate. The finding also found out that Google
Translate can produce quality translation or poor translation depending on the nature of the text
and the words which are in its data base but also its translation output is just a draft to be edited
by human translator to ensure it quality.

This research is comprised by five chapters namely: Chapter I General Introduction, Chapter II
Literature review, Chapter II Research Methodology, Chapter IV Presentation and analysis of
data, and Chapter V General Conclusion and recommendations.

iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AI: Artificial Intelligence

Approx: Approximately

AT: Automated Translation

ATG: Analysis Transfer Generation

CASS: College of Arts and Social Sciences

CAT: Computer-Assisted Translation

CBR: Case-Based Reasoning

CDAT: Commercialization and De-Risking for Agricultural Transformation

COR: Children Of Rwanda

DML: Department of Modern Language

EAMT: European Association for Machine Translation

EBMT: Based Machine Translation

GT: Google Translate

HAMT: Human -aided machine translation

HMT: Hybrid Machine Translation

HT: Human Translation

IAMT: International Association of Machine Translation

ICT: Communications Technology

nd: no date

NLP: Natural Language Processing

NMT: Neural Machine Translation

RBMT: Ruled-Based Machine translation

v
SAL: School of Arts and Languages

SL: Source Language

SMT: Statistical Machine Translation

ST: Source Text

TI: Translation & Interpreting

TL: Target Language

TT: Target Text

UR: University of Rwanda

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents
DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................................... i
DEDICATION .............................................................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... v
Table of contents ........................................................................................................................................ vii
CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
1.0. Background of the study .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Problem statement .......................................................................................................................... 5
1.2. Significance of the study ................................................................................................................ 7
1.3. Objectives of the studies ................................................................................................................ 7
1.4. Research questions ......................................................................................................................... 8
1.5. Hypothesis...................................................................................................................................... 8
1.6. Scope of study ................................................................................................................................ 8
1.7. Research methods .......................................................................................................................... 9
9. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 10
2.0. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1. Translation and its importance ..................................................................................................... 10
2.2. Google Translate and its history .................................................................................................. 11
2.3. Function of Google Translate ...................................................................................................... 12
2.4. Quality and limitation of Google translate ................................................................................... 13
2.5. Google Translate English and Kinyarwanda................................................................................ 14
2.2. Definitions of Terms ........................................................................................................................ 16
2.2.1. Translation ................................................................................................................................ 16
2.2.2. Machine Translation ................................................................................................................. 17
2.2.3. Literal translation ...................................................................................................................... 17
2.2.4. Source language and target language/ Source text and target text ............................................ 18
2.2.5. Google translate ........................................................................................................................ 18
2.2.6. Borrowing ................................................................................................................................. 18

vii
 2.2.7. Transposition............................................................................................................................. 19
2.2.8. Modulation ................................................................................................................................ 19
2.2.9. Adaptation ................................................................................................................................. 19
2.2.10. Neologism ............................................................................................................................... 19
2.2.11. Localization............................................................................................................................. 19
2.2.12. Terminology ............................................................................................................................ 20
2.2.13. Figurative language ................................................................................................................. 20
2.2.14. Translation memory ................................................................................................................ 20
2.2.15. Equivalence ............................................................................................................................. 20
2.2.16. Calque ..................................................................................................................................... 21
2.2.17. Paraphrasing ............................................................................................................................ 21
2.2.18. Computer-Assisted Translation (CAT) tools .......................................................................... 21
2.2.19. Post- editing ............................................................................................................................ 21
2.2.20. Pre-editing ............................................................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.............................................................................. 23
3.0. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 23
3.3.1. Sample and sampling procedure ............................................................................................... 23
3.3.2. Data collection methods ................................................................................................................ 23
3.3.2.1. Secondary data collection ...................................................................................................... 23
3.3.2.2. Primary Data Collection......................................................................................................... 24
3.4. Presentation and analysis of the findings ......................................................................................... 24
3.5. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 24
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS ............................................................ 25
4.0. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 25
4.1. DATA PRESENTATION ............................................................................................................ 25
4.2. DATA ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 36
IV.3. conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 46
CHAPTER FIVE: GENERAL CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 47
5.1. General Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 47
5.2. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 49
5.2.1. To the Translators and all users of Google Translate. .............................................................. 49
5.2.2.To the Clients ............................................................................................................................. 50
5.2.3.To the Google translate developers ............................................................................................ 50

viii
 5.3. Suggestions for Further Research ................................................................................................ 50
References .................................................................................................................................................. 51

ix
CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.0. Background of the study

Since the earliest days of human interaction, translation has continued to develop. Now more
than ever, translation has become a more useful instrument that facilitates cross-cultural
interactions, trade, globalization of the economy, and sharing of knowledge. With the help of
translation, the world has become more of a melting pot. This in turn, has further made
translation a more necessary service because people around the world cannot communicate
easily due to various languages spoken around the world, while they want to share common
interests.

Through the development of Information and Communications Technology (ICT), different tools
and systems were developed to facilitate translation. Subsequently, there was an invention of
Google Translate, a neural machine translation service developed by Google to translate
content from and into various languages used around the world.

In fact, Machine Translation (MT), is not a new concept. According to Bhattacharyya

(2015:1), MT has been in existence since 1940s and has furnished in recent time due to the
proliferation of the webs. However, development of machine translation to the extent it is
today was a long and systematic process. Different researches were conducted long time ago
and they significantly show that machine translation has a long history.

According to Hutchins (1995:431) “The translation of natural languages by machine, first

dreamt of in the seventeenth century, and has become a reality in the late twentieth century”.
Hutchins keeps stating that in 1964 the government sponsors of MT in the United States formed
the Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee (ALPAC), to examine the prospects of
machine translation but by this time, this project was regarded as completely impossible. The
results of different findings concluded that MT was slower, less accurate and twice as expensive
as human translators.

Unless to some perspectives, the project was failing, the researchers did not give up. According
to Booth (1998:vii), before 1950s, the American Programmes Developers on machine translation
started to get underway, when one of the developers, Irving Reifler produced a linguistics
analysis of the way which translation schemes should be conducted, and he suggested use of pre-
editors and post editors as well as number of technical linguistic, tricks which would be used in
1
machine translation. However, he was later accused of destroying school against machine
translation.

All these struggles led to the creation of Statistical Machine Translation (SMT), machine
translation tools such as Systran, Google Translate, Statistical Machine Translation (SMT),
Example-Based Machine Translation (EBMT), Automated Translation (AT), Neural Machine
Translation (NMT), Machine Translation (MT), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Ruled-
Based Machine translation (RBMT), Analysis Transfer Generation (ATG) and Case-Based
Reasoning (CBR) etc...

Throughout this struggle of improving translation based technology, Google Translate which
is one of the machine translation tools was developed. It is worthy to mention that Google was
developed and launched in 1998, by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, as a search engine. As time
went on, it was updated by improving and updating it to play other roles. As stated by
Schmidt (2020:2).

Jay, Rini and Farahsani (2020) point out that Google launched translation in its programs in
2006. Initially, Google Translate used to render from and into the official languages used by
the United Nations. Soon or later other languages were added and this is how Kinyarwanda
was added as well in 2021 by Google as pointed out by Gahigi (2021). Kinyarwanda speakers
were very happy to find Kinyarwanda in Google translate but later it became hilarious
because Kinyarwanda translation produced by Google Translate was proved to be of low
quality because it was not able to recognize a word with two or more meanings.

Let us consider the following texts translated by Google Translate from English to Kinyarwanda:
1. ST: Wash your hands before milking a cow and before pouring milk in jug, remember that, it
is sacrilege to spill milk intentionally.

GT 1: Karaba intoki mbere yo konka inka na mbere yo gusuka amata mu kibindi, ibuka ko, ari
igitambo kumena amata nkana.

GT 2: Oza intoki mbere yo konka inka nambere yo gusuka amata muri jug, Bukako, ari
sacrilege kumena amata nkana.

HT: Jyukaraba intoki mbere yo gukama inka na mbere yo kubuganiza amata mu cyansi, kandi
uzirikane ko kubikira amata kizira.

2
This rendition is the evidence that Google Translate produces low quality translation. It does not
detect the appropriate cultural terms of usage linked to milk in Rwandan culture. In GT 1
(Google translation 1), Google has failed to find appropriate Kinyarwanda terms for – to milk a
cow (gukama), to pour milk in jug (kubuganiza amata mu cyansi), sacrilege (ikizira) and to spill
milk intentionally (kubikira amata).

In GT 2, the appropriate term for wash hand is karaba intoki not oza intoki, jug and sacrilege
were not translated rather borrowed while they have equivalent in Kinyarwanda. “Remember
that” is not translated as bukako, this is grammatical error, it may be translated as zirikana ko.
Obliviously, above renditions are inaccurate because they do not provide intended meaning of
ST and they do not sound natural compared to the HT (Human translation) provided.

2. ST: Nausea can make you retch and vomit

GT: Isesemi irashobora gutuma ugaruka no kuruka

HT: Isesemi ishobora gutuma umokorwa ukanaruka.

In this rendition, Google Translate does not detect Kinyarwanda equivalent of retch which is
kumukorwa instead it translates it as kugaruka which is mistranslation. Questionably, Google
Translate does not notify the user that it failed to find an appropriate term or equivalent.
Instead it uses adaptation sometimes where it should not be used. In addition, Google
Translate usually translates (you may, it may etc… as urashobora, irashobora instead of
ushobora, ishobora …) Google Translate uses to smuggle “ra” which makes Kinyarwanda to
sound like Kirundi language or Ikirera dialect.

Sometimes, translating using Google Translate raises a serious challenge where Google may
provide different translations from one source text. When we observe the above examples GT
1 and GT 2, both these two TTs are formulated from one ST but they are somehow different.
The researcher tried to study the cause of these issues and proposed some reasons. Google
may provide different translations from one ST depending on the type of Google Translate
used, the way the ST is written i.e. the placement of capitalization and punctuation, and the
way the text was put in Google Translate.

Firstly, on the type of Google Translate used, the researcher means, Google Translation app
which is downloaded on android and used in Smartphone and Google Translate which is

3
found on Google. Google Translate users should be careful on the choice of Google Translate
to use because Google Translate may appear on different forms and the best one to use is
presented by this logo and interface

This is a screenshot of Google translate interface

On the translation sample provided above the GT 1 was provided by online Google Translate
while GT 2 was provided by Google Translate app from Smartphone. This use of alternative
Google Translate may lead to the different output translations.

Secondly, on the side of placement of capitalization and punctuation, when the word is written
with capital letter at initial letter, Google Translate detects it as a proper name and proper
names are not translated. Contrarily, when proper names are written with small latter, Google
Translate view them as normal terms. This issue can be found on the above provided example
“pour milk in Jug”. In this example, the initial letter „J‟ of the word Jug is capital letter,
therefore Google translated it as a proper name “suka amata muri Jug” but when „jug‟ is
written with initial small letter, Google translate it as a normal word and translate it as
„ikibindi‟ “ suka amata mu kibindi” . However, when the whole name is capital letter or small
letter, Google Translate it as normal.

Thirdly, Google Translate can provide different texts basing on the way the text was put in
Google Translate, when a text is pasted on Google, there are possibilities that it will be
translated differently from the text that was typed in Google Translate. Meanwhile, when one
is typing the same way Google is also translating simultaneously and sometimes Google is

4
confused to the extent that it may produce irrelevant outputs. But when the text is copied and
pasted in Google, Google processes it freely and generates overall verdict outputs.

Earlier researches conducted on machine translations and their quality did not consider the
English to Kinyarwanda combination as Kinyarwanda has been integrated into Google
Translate language database very recently. It is in this perspective that, this study proposes to
carry out an assessment of the translation quality of Google Translate from English to
Kinyarwanda.

The main motivation behind this study is to raise awareness of the public and especially of the
translators on how Google Translations from English to Kinyarwanda are of a poor quality
and should not be relied on. According to Google, by 2023 Google Translate is able to
provide automated translations from and into 133 languages which definitely makes it the
most famous machine translation tool compared to other machine translation tools and
systems such as Systran, DeepL Translate and Bing Microsoft Translator.

1.1. Problem statement

ICTs are one of the major advances of the 21st century distinguishing it from the previous ones.
Most of human activities are performed using different technological means. Technology has
extended and reaches every field, and translation does not make an exception. Technology in
translation gave birth to Machine Translation which is the main concern of this study. Machine
Translation tools and systems brought by technology are said to perform translation tasks, but
their translation quality is sometimes questionable.

Previous researches show that some of the questions encountered in using Google Translate
include inaccuracy, ambiguity, inconsistence, syntax and pragmatics issues, grammatical
interference, mistranslation, and word for word translation which can sometimes be a problem
depending on the nature of the text such as proverbs and idioms that deserve great attention,
analysis and advanced knowledge of translation techniques. That is to say, if a translator relies
on direct translation, he/she may commit rough or mistranslation.

According to Chan (2004:181) “mistranslation is simply incomprehensible translation and when

it is made, it seems to waste the time and efforts of the reader. Therefore, it is unacceptable for it
is dead translation”. Let us examine the following Kinyarwanda proverb and its English
translation:

5
ST: Agapfa kaburiwe ni impongo.

- GT: And he died and was killed by a goat

- HT: Forewarned is forearmed

This is the same case when English proverb is translated from English into Kinyarwanda. For
instance “All farts do not smell bad” Google translate it as “Farts zose ntabwo zihumura nabi”.
Obliviously, the output translation of Google Translate is ambiguous. Therefore translators
should be careful while using Machine Translation.

In the above example, ST stands for Source Text, GT for Google Translate and HT for Human
Translation. By looking at the above translation, we find that Google Translate faces challenges
in translating English into Kinyarwanda or Kinyarwanda into English. There is nonsense,
ambiguity and mistranslation and some vocabularies are unknown to Google because it does not
have them in its database. It is arguably due to the fact that Kinyarwanda has very limited digital
footprint on the internet, and is new on Google Translate. All these challenges hinder Google
Translate to produce accurate translations.

Another challenge is related to punctuation and spelling. Samuel (2004:101) states that the
position of a comma in a sentence could change the verdict especially on legal document”. He
further states: “having a spellchecking program is not only necessary but indispensable tool [...]
It will indicate only that a word is incorrectly spelt or unrecognizable but it will not tell you that
you have used a word that is out of context”. All these challenges make translation produced by
Google Translate rough, poor and of low quality.

As mentioned by Nzigiyimana (2012:33), historically translation has been perceived as human

activity of transferring a message, contents, and ideas from one language into another. It is not
said that translation is a machine‟s task. That is why there are numerous challenges that emerge
with the use of machine translations.

These challenges include mistranslation, omission and misuse punctuation, nonsense and rough
translation, as machine translation cannot notify the user that it has missed equivalent or an
appropriate term to use. Nzigiyimana (2012:37) pointes that there are some limitations on what
the machine can translate and what it cannot translate depending on the language, as sometimes
their translations are rough and of low quality. He adds that the words that are not set in system
cannot be translated while words are created every day as languages grow.
6
Most of these challenges become more serious when working with international languages like
English and African languages like Kinyarwanda. This phenomenon roused our intention to
conduct research on this field in order to make people who use machine translation aware of
those challenges and be ready to set out possible solutions to overcome them.

There are various machine translation tools that use different languages but this study has chosen
to focus on only one which is Google Translate, from English into Kinyarwanda. This choice is
made because Google is one of machine translation which uses Kinyarwanda and English
languages combination in its language translation database. Additionally, in the case of this
study, Kinyarwanda is the first language of the researcher and English is his second language so
it is easy for the researcher to detect translation errors in these two languages. This research will
attempt to assess the challenges usually hindering Google Translate to produce quality
translations when translating from English to Kinyarwanda. This study will try to compare
Google translations with human translations. Moreover, it will try to study whether or not
Google can produce good translation in this pair of language.

1.2. Significance of the study

This study will be of a paramount importance to both translators and other people who frequently
use Google Translate to translate from English to Kinyarwanda. Secondly, it will serve as a work
of reference for readers, students and researchers who will conduct further research on this field
Last but not least, this work will shed light on what translators or translation service consumers
should expect and not expect from MT in order to know where they may put efforts and attention
while using machine translation generally translating from or into English and Kinyarwanda
using Google Translate.

1.3. Objectives of the studies

13.1. General objective

This research aims to assess the quality of translations produced by Google Translate in
rendering from English to Kinyarwanda.

7
1.3.2. Specific objective
Comparing Google translations to the human translation and analysing the errors found in
translation rendered by Google Translate, and proposing some solutions to enhance the quality of
Google Translate.

1.4. Research questions

 Does Google Translate really produce poor or quality translations of English into
Kinyarwanda?
 How Google Translate can be improved to produce English to Kinyarwanda quality
translation?

1.5. Hypothesis
 Google Translate may produce English into Kinyarwanda quality or poor translation
depending on nature of the text. Google translate produce poor English to Kinyarwanda
quality translation because Kinyarwanda language has very limited digital footprint on
the internet, and is new on Google Translate.

 Human /professional translator is very far from being replaced by a MT Tool in term of
producing quality translation.

1.6. Scope of study

This research is concerned with translation quality assessment of Machine Translation by
focusing on Google Translate from English into Kinyarwanda.

Data have been collected using documentation. The corpus is made of one full text and one
segment comprised by 40 sentences, those sentences were compiled from different domain like
Medical, Legal, Proverbs, Agriculture, Education, Wellerism, Idioms and Religious. This
segment was chosen to be used because, nowadays some clients offers translation assignments in
segment format comprised by texts from different domains. Furthermore, the segment was
selected because it combines different sentences from different domains as it is not easy to find a
full text that relates different domains but segment can do.

The researcher limited himself on 40 sentences because all selected domains have been presented
by at least 5 sentences. In addition, one text was selected to be used, it is a specialized text about
bee keeping in Rwanda. Both the segment and texts were translated using Google translate from

8
English into Kinyarwanda and were analysed to ensure their translation quality using
comparative stylistics where TT text was compared to the ST.

1.7. Research methods

While conducting this research, data were collected using documentation approach and those
data were analysed and presented using qualitative method.

7.1. Sampling procedures.

One English text and one segment comprised by 40 sentences was pasted/ typed in Google
Translate and rendered into Kinyarwanda. Thereafter, those texts translated by Google translate
were examined to ensure their naturalness and translation quality.

7.2. Data analysis.

There are various methods of analyzing data, like qualitative and quantitative. Depending on the
nature of this research, qualitative data analysis was applied.

9. Conclusion
To sum up, the results of the findings will pave a way for future researchers to keep conducting
further research on this field and other related machine translation tools as this research only
focuses on Google Translate from English into Kinyarwanda. Unquestionably, this research will
raise awareness to the translators who use machine translation, for where to pay attention, when
and how to use machine translation tools and how they can make Google Translate a useful
instrument in their translation process. Thus, this research attempts to reflect on research
questions and objectives aforementioned.

9
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0. Introduction
Machine Translation (MT) is one of the most advanced and elaborate research fields within
Translation Technology. The quality of MT output has always been a great concern, and MT
evaluation is a popular research topic. Al-Tuwayrish, 2015, as cited in (Robertson 2019), defines
MT as an integrated part of computational linguistics that utilizes specific software to translate
text from one language to others. He further points out that the general role of machine
translation is to assist, possibly fully assists the human translators to provide the target language
text to meet the ideal translation. Despite the significant development of MT in translation field,
their translation quality is still debatable.

Azer (2015) states that, when MT is considered as a full translator, it experiences a great deal of
difficulty in adjusting the meaning and finding the equivalence since human language is a
complex system and involves complex aspects. However several previous studies have been
conducted concerning evaluations of machine translation‟s translation quality, accuracy and have
proven that it is not as appropriate as of human translation. However, though MT plays a big role
in facilitating translation process, translators should not rely much on MT as suggested by Hoi
(2020) that even though Machine Translations have been evolving and able to increase humans‟
efficiency in translation, much dependence on those machines should be avoided.

The reason behind avoiding much dependency of using MT tools in translation is their
questionable and poor translation outputs. Nasution (2022) points out that, translation produced
by MT is divided into two quality categories: less readable and readable. The less readable
translation is caused by MT‟s inability to adjust to stylistic forms of language, failure to do
adaptation strategy and in some cases, MT tends to follow the same sentence structure of the
original text (source text).

2.1. Translation and its importance

Various researchers have tried to define translation and its importance. Shaheen (1991) as cited
in (Robertson 2019) defines translation as a process of transferring the meaning from source
language to receptor language on a structurally simple level that is stylistically and semantically
done to meet the equivalent expression in the receptor language. Amilia (2020) does not
contradict Robertson, she defines Translation as the change of form (words, phrases, clauses,
sentences, or paragraphs) and also a process of transferring the meaning from its original
10
language into the target language. Moreover, Wilss (1982) as cited in (Amilia (2020) points out
that “translation is a transfer process, which aims at the transformation of a written SL text into
an optimally equivalent TL text, and which requires the syntactic, the semantic and the pragmatic
understanding and analytical processing of the SL”

Translating consists in 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”. (Nida
&Taber, 1974:12). Therefore, those aspects; receptor language, source language, and meaning
are inseparable aspects in the process of translation. It is worthier to mention that, testing the
translation result is worthy in order to check and make sure the result of translation is accurate in
meaning and style.

Translation plays an important role in removing communication barriers among the people who
speak different languages. According to Amilia (2020) there are many languages in the world
(approx. 7.000 languages) which are being spoken and used by people throughout the world. It is
a real obstacle in communicating between two different languages, and translation is the only
bridge to solve the problem. According to Bahri (2016), the translation process requires the work
of translators which includes both humans and machines “This collaboration of machine and
human translation is nowadays advanced but people think those machine translations are better
than human translation because they perform and strive a quick translation”.

Given the role that translation plays, it was not left behind in technology. As it has been
mentioned in the previous pages, there was invention of Google Translate, the most popular
machine translation tool that aims to facilitate translation process.

2.2. Google Translate and its history

(Bahri, 2016; Ghasemi & Hashemian, 2016) state that, one of the most outstanding machine
translation is Google Translate. Google Translate is a web-based free machine translation
developed by Google Company that provides text translation from one language to another
language in wider range of languages (approximately more than 133 languages). Robertson
(2019) also supports that Google is the most commonly known translation application, which is
decidedly used. It is said as multi-language translation application because it can translate any
text from more than 133 languages. Besides, it can be said that Google Translate is the most
popular online translation application that starts getting attention since early 2000s.

11
The beginning of the emergence of Google translate (GT) as pointed out by Nasution (2022) was
when one of the founders of Google, Sergey Brin received a letter from a fan who spoke Korean
and none of them understood the language. Brin then translated the letter through his machine
translator.

According to Karami (2014), the history of Google Translate began in 2001, with Google's
machine translation system using a translation system based on Ruled Based Machine
Translation. It started with only six languages, namely English, French, German, Italian,
Portuguese, and Spanish (English to other languages) and in early 2004 other languages were
added. Later on in 2006, Google Translate followed the statistical translation model in SMT to
do word translation.

However, In November 2016, Google innovated the GT by evolving from the Statistical
Machine Translation (SMT) model to Neural Machine Translation (NMT). This development is
certainly expected to produce better and more accurate translation results. Currently, Google has
succeeded in providing free translation services for 133 languages in the world. Moreover, by
2016 over 500 million people were translating 100 billion words in more than 103 languages
(Krouleck, 2016).

2.3. Function of Google Translate

It is worthy to know how Google translate works, some people think that using Google translate
is like photocopying, but this is not true. According to Gestanti (2012) when this machine is
required to translate a text, Google Translate searches any structure of written material found on
internet, and looks for the similar pattern of text being translated. After that, the machine takes
one most similar pattern and meaning and put it in the form of certain sentences based on the
source text. It can be said that Google Translate only can translate the same pattern available on
internet. This means that, the term which is not on internet or in Google database cannot be
translated by Google translate.

Moreover, Robertson (2019), suggest that what one has to do is to type, even copy and paste the
words or sentences in the Google Translate webpage box and a direct translation result is made
available in an instant. For GT to translate it uses statistical database from its online database to
find to meaning during the process. In addition, user should make sure that he/she has set
appropriately source language and target language as required, he/she must also make sure that

12
source text is orthography accurate and not forgetting to proofread translation produced by GT to
ensure it quality.

2.4. Quality and limitation of Google translate

GT like other automatic translation tools has some limitations. Although it can help readers to
understand the general content of foreign language texts, it does not provide an accurate
translation. (Nasution, 2022).GT is limited to the number of words it receives once and has
limited number of languages that it translates from or into, it does not support all languages
spoken around the world.

Google Translate is said to produce instant translation, but According to Elmira (2021), “…if
something is completed very quickly, there is generally a reasonable expectation that it will not
be of high quality. Quality work takes more time, care, and attention.” Obliviously, translation
deserves a careful observation and skills in order to produce an accurate translation. Another
problem as pointed out by Ferrell (2016), “One of the issues with Google Translate is that it
never confesses to not having an answer”. Habeeb (2019) has also stated that even though
Google Translate has several advantages, it has drawbacks such as inaccurate output and no
proofread tools.

Schutte and Biguenet (1992, p 43) “The translator‟s goal must be to provide his readers with the
same image and same pleasures as reading the work in the original languages” this is obliviously
right because when a translator does not follow this rule, he is not translating rather he is
separating author from his readers. GT is improving and numbering the languages that it
translates into but its translation is still questionable in some extents.

Despite the advance development and improvement of Google Translate, the result of its
translation is quite debatable to be awkward. It may be the modest machine translation, but in
some points, it fails in recognizing several patterns of language, such as subject-verb agreement,
special terms of several fields, long, complex sentences, etc. (Azer, 2015; Ghasemi &
Hashemian, 2016).

This is also pointed out that, translating a text using translation machine, especially Google
Translate, cannot give result as good as the one produced by a skilled, professional translator,
and the translation quality is still far away from the quality of that of human translation. Errors

13
are commonly found in Google Translate translation, so a human revision is needed to correct
the errors in order to gives an adequate translation product.

Different findings have pointed some of the problems encountered while using GT. Mossop
(2014) as cited in Amilia (Amilia, 2020) has pointed out quality translation should mean what
the source means that no addition nor subtractions. He further point out some of the problem
encountered while using GT like, problem of meaning transfer (accuracy), problems of
completeness, problems of content (logic), problem of languages (lay out) and problems of
typography and organization.

Translators and users of GT in general should pay attention on GT outputs as suggested by

Ferrell (2016), “ It is also worth noting that professional translations are expensive, and the costs
of translations may be higher than the costs of proofreading. Hence, Google Translate is also
used for generating an initial draft that may be given to a proofreader for improvement. It is
essential to know the limitations of Google Translate for using it as efficiently as possible.
Nzigiyimana (2012, p20) “ machine translate has not yet reached the level of replacing human
translators that translators should remain supremacy convinced that machine will never replace
human translators”. As pointed out by Samuel, Carmona &David (2017), “When Google
Translate is better than Some Human Colleagues, those People are no longer Colleagues”.

2.5. Google Translate English and Kinyarwanda

Kinyarwanda language is said to have been put in Google Translate recently in 2021, this state of
being new in Google database as well as on internet makes GT to commit some errors in its
translation. In addition, English and Kinyarwanda are not language of same family, this happens
mostly in translation of idioms, colloquial, proverbs and culture contexts. Setiyadi et al (2020),
found that Google Translate is less clear and quite unnatural in translating culture specific
concept from difference languages. There are possibilities that the translation produced by
Google Translate are of average quality between European languages, as pointed out by Aiken
(2019) translation between European languages are basically good while those involving Asia
and African languages are often relatively poor.

Contrarily, even for language in which the accuracy is high there is still the potential for
important inaccuracies. (Brahmana, 2020). However, GT has not reached estimated quality in
Translation. Chel et al (2016) found that Google provided accurate translation for simple
sentences, but the likelihood of incorrect translation increased when the original English
14
sentences required higher grade levels to comprehend. This is the same case in translating from
English and Kinyarwanda, where sometimes GT produces TT which is different from ST.

ST: Emmanuel Sibomana umubyeyi umwe mu babyeyi baganiriye nUmuseke kuri iki kibazo
avuga kuri iyi gahunda nshya yagize ati « Ni byiza, umwana wanjye nubundi ndamuhingira ko
amaboko nyafite se, no kwishuri nzajya muhingira.»

GT: Emmanuel Sibomana, one of the parents who spoke to Umuseke about this issue, speaking
about this new program, said: "It's good, my child, I pray that my father has my hands, and I will
go to school." »

HT: Emmanuel Sibomana one of the parents, on his interview with Umuseke about this issue,
while talking about this new program, he said” it is good , i normally cultivate for my child, i will
even cultivate for him at school, arms are mine”.

In above generated translation, are good of how google translate from kinyarwanda into english.
By comparing the message in quotation produced by GT and that of HT, they are merely
diferent compared to the source text. Google has include some information which are not in
source text like father , pray, i will go to school etc. It should better GT to notify that it does not
have appropriete translation than producing irelevent message which should misorient the
readers.

For better translation ,a translator should have a deep knowledge in both languages SL and TL,
in addition he/she should have competent skill in both culture as well as analytical skills and
good choice of words basing on context, from here rises a problem because Google does not
have enough features of Kinyarwanda language in term of linguistics aspect like translating
different genre of language such as poet, dialect and specialized Kinyarwanda terms ,Slangs,
colloquial ..,most of these features machine translate fails to perform them.

Mohamed and Nagoor (2017), “The reasons for this failure have been described many times, and
come down to the fact that the analysis of messages by humans in natural language relies to
some extent on information which is not present in the words which make up the message”.
Translation is said to be quality when meets these element as stated by Murwantonto (2008),
Translation result is ideal when it meets the three requirements, namely accuracy, clearness or

15
readability, and naturalness. Translation is accurate when the message or idea of source language
text is transferred and reproduced as exactly same as possible into the target language text one.

Hitherto, translation challenges encountered in using machine translates in translation are

increasing day to day, but translator should set strategies to overcome those challenges,
according to Mukarukundo (2017, p22),states that translators should invest mind on the work
produced by Google translate in term of post editing, proofreading by remembering using
machine translation because using machine translate is not photocopying ,it requires professional
skills, this was also confirmed by Mugeni (2006, p v),” Translators must learn how to use new
technologies for improvement of their products by bearing in mind that either MT nor CAT or
TM can perform well without their intervention”.

Baker (2006, p39), “every discipline, including translation studies, elaborates and thrives its own
set of concepts” it is in this regard here are some of the concepts or terms that are used in
translation:

2.2. Definitions of Terms

2.2.1. Translation

According to Munday (2012, p8), “The English term Translation, first attested in around 1340,
drives either from old French traduction or more directly from the Latin translatio
(„transporting‟), itself coming from the participle of the verb Tranferre („to carry over‟), in the
field of language, translation has several meanings”.

Translation can be defined as an art of transferring written message from one language into
another. Translation requires great attention because it is not every one to be able to translate
because translation requires professional skills and linguistic compentence in order to produce
quality translation. According to Booth (1967, p139) “Translation requires knowledge of the
language which is translated from as well as the language into which the translation is done,
understanding the context of the text translated and knowing how to accumulate translation
experience in order to gradually raise the quality of translation”. This is understandable that in
order to translate professionally, one must have translation and linguistic literacy as well as
culture clue. Of course, having linguistic background or being polyglot is not enough to be a
good translator, one should be qualified in this field of translation.
16
2.2.2. Machine Translation

According to Bhattacharyya‟s overview (2015, p xix), “the field of machine translation (MT) is
as old as computer science, itself starting in the days of cold war. Because of globalization,
tourism, commerce, governance, education etc..,” the need for translation has became all
pervading and the sheer volume of translation, has made automation inevitable computer‟s entry
into translation was natural like into many other human activities such as accounting . ..

Sager (1994 as quoted by Icyimpaye 2022), states that Machine Translation (MT) originally
referred only to automatic systems with no human involvement. More precisely, Hedblom
(2010:1) defines it as a sub-genre in Artificial Intelligence that deals with automatic translations
between different languages. In the same vein, the European Association for Machine Translation
(EAMT) considers MT as “the application of computers to the task of translating texts from one
natural language to another”.

As for the International Association of Machine Translation (IAMT), MT is defined as taking

“input in the form of full sentences at a time [sic] and generating corresponding full
sentences (not necessarily of good quality)” (Hutchins, 2000). Through (AI) artificial
intelligence and (NLP) natural language processing and computing (ICT) capabilities brought
Machine translation into mainstream. However, according to Austin as posted on localize (n.d)
there are four types of machine translation which are Statistical Machine Translation (SMT),
Ruled base machine translation (RBMT), Hybrid Machine Translation (HMT) and Neural
Machine Translation (NMT).

2.2.3. Literal translation

According to the definition given by Chan (2004,p95), “Literal translation is just word for word
and line by line translation, everything in the original is in the translation and everything not in
original is also not in the target translation”. This translation is also known as direct translation
because it transfers everything from source language into target language as photocopying and
sometimes produces poor quality translations.Contary to Chan‟s definition of literal translation,
on other side literal translation can be good because, it translate using the most common meaning
rather than fugirative meaning which is sometimes difficult depending on targeted readers like
children.

17
2.2.4. Source language and target language/ Source text and target text

According to Samuelsson (2004), the source language/source text is the language or text you are
working from whereas target language/text is the language or text you are working into.
Commonly source language is presented by (SL), source text by (ST), target language by (TL),
and target language is presented by (TT).

2.2.5. Google translate

According to the Google,“ Google translate is a multilingual neural machine translation service
developed by Google to translate text, document and websites from one language into another”
Wikipedia furthermore states that from January 2023 Google translate support 133 languages at
various level and as of April 2016 claimed over 500 million users, with more than 100 billion
words translated daily. It was launched in April 2006 as statistical machine translation service
however it was developed and updated now it can translate from or into at least 133 worldwide
languages. Despite this great achievement, Google translate still has long journey to translate
into or from as many languages as possible because there are more than 7000 languages and
today it only translate into 133 language which is low number.

2.2.6. Borrowing

Borrowing is a common translation technique, it is basically means that the translator makes
conscious choice to use the same word into the target text as it is found in source text. This is
usually the case when there is no equivalent term in target language. This technique also allows
the translator to put a text clearly within a particular cultural context through the register of the
vocabulary it uses. However, certain terms allow people belonging to the community of similar
interests to transcend linguistic system. Roger (2015, p117), “when languages and cultural come
into contact, it is quite natural that linguistic changes occur as a result of contact. The part of a
language which is most likely to change in noticeable way is the vocabulary which is also
susceptible to change through internal developments as meanings change and new words or
phrases appear to cover new phenomena or conceptualize existing phenomena”. Translating from
or into English and Kinyarwanda using Google translation, it is not easy to deal with borrowing
where sometimes Google will makes unnecessary borrowing where it does not recognize a word
or term.

18
2.2.7. Transposition

Transposition is the process where parts of the speech change their sequences when they are
translated. Briefly, it is replacing one word class with another without changing the meaning of
the message. For example translating English noun into Kinyarwanda verb using transposition:
self-esteem which is renderd as kwihesha agaciro.

2.2.8. Modulation

Modulation is translation method in which a translator tries to maintain naturalness by using

various form the message done by changing the point of view. This procedure is usually chosen
when translators find that literal translation would result in awkward or unnatural translation. An
English word facemask in Kinyarwanda is translated as Agapfukamunwa but Google fails to
translate it as one word but when it is written as two words “face mask” Google translate it as
“Mask yo mumaso” this is an evidence that Google is not at level of using modulation while it is
crucial element in translation.

2.2.9. Adaptation

Adaptation is a translation method that focuses on altering the source text so that it corresponds
to the culture, style, grammar, semantics and syntax of the target languages.

2.2.10. Neologism

Is the name for a newly coined expression, term, word or phrase, according to Rogers (2015,p
121), “neologism can be thought of simply as newly inverted words sometimes known as
„coinages‟.

2.2.11. Localization

Localization refers to the transform or localizing an entire product or content from one language
into another, according to Anthony (214,p117), refers to the translating and adaptation of
software, instructions manuals and websites ,he adds that localization involves taking a product
and making it linguistically appropriate to the target (local country, region and language)where it
will be used.

19
2.2.12. Terminology

Terminology is a very important part of translation process, by definition as provided by

Translation European parliament (n.d), terminology is the study, collection and systematic
presentation of terms but it can also refer to the pool of these terms, i.e. specialized word and
expression specific to a particular subject field where technical terms are used. Rogers
(2015,p91), suggests “modern day students of specialized translation are strongly advised to
consult subject experts in their request to understand un familiar source language terms and or to
fill terminological gap in the target language”

2.2.13. Figurative language

Figurative language involves a deviation from what speakers of a language apprehend as the
ordinary or ordinary significance or sequence of words in order to achieve some special meaning
or effect using figures of speech. Wilson, Bieier and Fowlett (2014, P65), define figurative
language as “employment of language to present something that arguably cannot be presented in
a language”. Briefly, figurative language is a language which does not means what it says,
however this language may include: metaphors, similes, neologisms, names, idioms, wellerism,
illusions and word plays among others. Some young people cannot understand no-literal
language and this is why translators should mind and think about his /her readers as machine
translator could not do so.

2.2.14. Translation memory

Translation memory is a linguistic database that capture translation as a translators work for
future use for helping him to work faster. Mugeni (2006, p18), defines TM as “database that
store words and phrases that you have already translated, the next time you come across the same
word or phrase the database looks up the word and automatically gives you the choice of using
the same translation”.

2.2.15. Equivalence

According to Baker (1992), “equivalence is any meaning from the source language which
expresses the same meaning in the target language” this is not beyond the view of Vinay and
Darbelnet (1995:32), as cited in Basigayabo (2020), equivalence is defined as “a procedure in
20
which the same situation is replicated as in the original but different wording is used”. They also
state that through this procedure, the stylistic impact of the source language text can be
maintained in the target language text. Therefore, while translating proverbs and other fixed
expression, equivalence is concerned more with sense than formal expression. Robertson 2019)
concludes that, Equivalence is a condition in which the words chosen in target language can
represent the exact meaning of words being translated from source language.

2.2.16. Calque

According to A Translator‟s Thoughts (2016), “calque is actually a word or a phrase borrowed

from another language by literal, word by word for word translation.” The term calque is
borrowed from French and it drives from the verb calquer which means to copy, to trace in order
to create new lexeme in target language”.

2.2.17. Paraphrasing

Is a restatement of the meaning of the text or passage using other words, according to Schulte
and Biguenet (1992, p20), state that paraphrasing seeks to overcome the irrationality of
languages but only in mechanical ways that it says itself “even if I do not find a word in my
language that corresponds to that in the original language, I still want to retain its value by
additional of limiting or expanding definitions”.

2.2.18. Computer-Assisted Translation (CAT) tools

Is the process of using software to help a human translator to transfer the meaning of written text
from one language to another and this differs from Human -aided machine translation (HAMT)
which refers to the system and techniques rely on real automation of the translation function
when rendering a text from one language to another. According to Icyimpaye (2022), Computer-
Assisted Translation (CAT) tools should not be confused with Machine Translation (MT)
since the former‟s purpose is not to replace the translator‟s work by completely automating the
translation process. CAT tools are also different from HAMT because in the latter, the human
intervenes when the machine is stuck and the input needs to be simplified and output
requires improvement. Apparently, the role of CAT tools is to assist translators in their work
without doing the job for them or eliminating the human intervention from the process.

2.2.19. Post- editing

21
Refers to the process whereby humans amend machine generated translation to ensure translation
accuracy, Icyimpaye (2022), states that human being plays the role of an editor. Every error
made by Google has to be spotted. Human-Aided Machine Translation (HAMT), the source
text has to be modified before, during or after its translation by the computer. This is important
because after translating using machine translation, translator should proofread in order to edit by
removing or adding necessary translation units.

2.2.20. Pre-editing

Contrary to the Post- editing which is done after translating using machine translation in term of
proofreading by removing errors, Wikipedia defines Pre-editing as a process whereby a human
prepares a document before applying machine translation in order to remove the errors that may
cause machine translate to commits errors especially in term of typological errors.

To sum up, through this link https://www.pactranz.com/types-of-translation/ There is a huge list

of 51 translation types, methods and techniques, translation process that are commonly used in
translation domain. However, Google translate can sometimes apply above mentioned technique
of translation but it uses them in inappropriate way, only human translator is one to adjust while
proofreading and post editing.

22
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0. INTRODUCTION
This section discusses methodological approaches that were used along the process of conducting this
research. However, the researcher has tried to ensure that methodology chosen interlink and reflects
the research problem and research questions provided in chapter one. This chapter is comprised by
population, sampling procedure, data collection instruments, and ethical considerations.

3.3.1. Sample and sampling procedure

According to kabir (2016), “sampling is the selection of subset of population of interest in a research
study” this is applied in order to estimate characteristics of entire population when it is not possible to
include all populations.

Thus, there are different types of sampling procedures from which a researcher is supposed to choose
one that fits the research and which is more relevant and likely to allow him/her to collect the desired
information from respondents or objects traced in research.

For this regard, the researcher chose two texts, means one text and one segment. Those texts were
used to assess translation quality of GT from English into Kinywarwanda. Those texts were selected
because they contains some general and specialized terms.

3.3.2. Data collection methods

3.3.2.1. Secondary data collection

3.3.2.1.1. Documentation
The key point in this research was to read other people‟s view about Machine Translation, Google
Translate especially on challenges encountered using Google Translate for translating from English
into Kinyarwanda. Through this approach, the researcher came to realize other researchers‟ opinions
about the quality of Google Translate from English into Kinyarwanda. The researcher consulted
printed documents i.e. books, corpus, dissertations, thesis and journals whose content is wholly or
partially related to his topic, those document were obtained from library, online resources like e-
books, researchgate ,Google search etc.. Some extracts from those documents were taken for
analyzing translation quality of Google Translate of English into Kinyarwanda.

23
3.3.2.2. Primary Data Collection
Primary data were obtained from comparison and analyzing selected text and segment after their
renditions using Google translate from English into Kinyarwanda to ensure their translation quality.

3.4. Presentation and analysis of the findings

Data interpretation is the process of reviewing data and arriving at relevant conclusions using various
analytical methods. From here, data from various source are gathered, reviewed and then analyzed
form some sort of findings or conclusion. However, this is the centre of gravity and the mirror
reflecting the core object of the study and is dealt broadly in chapter IV.

3.5. CONCLUSION
Briefly, this chapter presented and explained how data of this research was collected and
procedures that will be used to achieve targeted objectives of this research. Moreover, the
findings will be discussed, presented and interpreted in the next chapter.

24
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.0. INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents English text in form of segment translated into Kinyarwanda language
using Google translate and human translator. This chapter also analyses the translation quality of
translation produced by Google translate basing on the findings

4.1. DATA PRESENTATION

Data were presented in tables. The table has three columns representing Source text in English,
target translation by Google and target translation by a professional translator into Kinyarwanda
language.

SL TL by GOOGLE Translate TL by Professional Translator

English Kinyarwanda Kinyarwanda

1. History of Present Illness 1.Amateka yuburwayi bwa Amakuru y‟uburwayi afite

none
Joy Mugarura is a 11 m.o. Byishimo Mugarura ni 11 Joy Mugarura ni umwana
female with history of HIE m.o. igitsina gore gifite w‟umukobwa uri mukigero cy‟ amezi
with IPH, seizures, amateka ya HIE hamwe na 11 y‟ubukuru, usanganywe ikibazo
blindness, G-tube IPH, gufatwa, ubuhumyi, cy‟uburwayi bwo kubura umwuka
dependence due to severe guterwa na tube bitewe na uhagije kubwonko ndetse nokuvira
dysphagia, developmental dysphagia ikabije, gutinda imbere mubwonko, kugagara
delays consistent with kumajyambere bihuye na bitunguranye, ubuhumyi ndetse akaba
quadriparetic cerebral palsy. parade ya cadriparetic. yarashyizwe mo agahombo kanyuzwa
She was last evaluated by Aheruka gusuzumwa na mo ibimutunga binyuze mumara
Drs. On 11/12/2021. Dr. Ku ya 11/12/2021. kubera ikibazo gikomeye afite cyo
kutabasha kumira. Akaba kandi afite
ikibazo cyo kugwingira no kudakora
neza kw‟imitsi y‟ubwonko.Aheruka
gusuzumwa n‟abaganga ku wa
12/11/2021

Past Medical History: Amateka yubuvuzi Ibyo yasuzumwe mbere :

25
 bwahise:

1.HIE from birth - suspected 1.HIE kuva akivuka - 1.kubura umwuka uhagije kubwonko
maternal fetal hemorrhage ukekwaho kuvuka kwa bikekwa ko byatewe no kuva bikabije
nyababyeyi mugihe cyo kuvuka

2.Neonatal seizures 2.Gufata umwana 2.kugagara bitunguranye

3.Cortical blindness, being 3.Ubuhumyi bwa cortique, 3.kutareba neza, byatumye yoherezwa
followed by Ophthalmology bukurikirwa nubuvuzi mubitaro bivura amaso
clinic. bwamaso.

4.Laryngomalacia s/p 4.Laryngomalacia s / p 4.kwifunga kumuhogo byabangamiye

supraglottoplasty 6/14/21 supraglottoplasti 6/14/21 guhumeka kwe.Yasuzumwe kuwa
14/6/21

5.Dysphagia/Aspiration 5.Dysphagia / Aspiration 5.kutabasha kumira kubwo kwifunga

leading to GJ tube dependence iganisha kuri GJ tube kw‟imitsi yo
biterwa mumuhogo,yashyizwemo agahombo
kanyuzwa mo ibimutunga binyuze
mumara
6.Foster care due to medical 6.Kurera abana kubera 6.Yahawe umurezi kubwo kwanga
neglect kutita ku buvuzi imiti

2. Shall I study linguistics or 2. Nzokwiga indimi cyangwa 2.Ese nzige iyigandimi cyangwa
interpreting? I can‟t make up gusobanura? Sinshobora nzige ubusemuzi? Guhitamo
my mind. gufata icyemezo. byananiye pee.

3. Love goes with nostalagia 3. Urukundo rujyana na 3. Urukundo n‟urukumbuzi

nostalagia biragendana.

4. Nausea can make you retch 4. Isesemi irashobora gutuma 4. Isesemi ishobora gutuma
ugaruka umokorwa

26
5. Riddles, wellerism, idioms, 5. Ibisobanuro, gusebanya, 5.Ibisakuzo,rukina mubikomeye,
poems and proverbs are not imvugo, ibisigo n'imigani inshoberamahanga, imivugo ndetse
easily translated into another ntabwo byoroshye n‟imigani y‟imigenurano biragorana
languages guhindurwa mundimi zindi kubihindura muzindi ndimi

6. My stepmother is hot 6. Mama wa mama wanjye 6.Mukadata ni umunyamujinya,

tempered, I wish she should arashyushye, ndifuza ko nifuza ko yakiga kugenzura mujinya
learn how to control her yakwiga uko yakwifata. we.
temper.

7. My new shoes do not fit 7. Inkweto zanjye nshya 7.Inkweto zange zirandya kubera
me, they only pinch. ntabwo zinkwiriye, kutankwira.
ziranyeganyega gusa.

8. People with physical 8. Ababana n'ubumuga 8.Abafite ubumuga bw‟ingingo,

disability, blinds, deaf and bw‟umubiri, impumyi, ubumuga bwo kutareba, ubumuga
dumb have equal right as abatumva n'ibiragi bafite bwo kutumva ndetse nubwo kutavuga
other people in Rwanda. uburenganzira bungana bose bafite uburenganzira bungana
nk'abandi bantu mu Rwanda. n‟ubwabandi mu u Rwanda.

9. Don‟t be a hysterical 9. Ntukabe umuntu 9.Ntukage uba rushinyika, iki ni

person, this is a serious issue. w'inzobere, iki nikibazo ikibazo gikomeye.
gikomeye.

10. If you don‟t want to 10. Niba ushaka kurangiza 10.Niba ushaka kurangiza kaminuza
graduate without a retake, you nta gusubiramo, ugomba nta somo usubiyemo, ugomba
should avoid skiving class. kwirinda ishuri ryo kwirinda gusiba ishuri.
gusiganwa.

11. All farts do not smell bad 11. Farts zose ntabwo 11. Imisuzi yose siko inuka
zihumura nabi

12. An intelligent student does 12. Umunyeshuri ufite 12. umunyeshuri w‟umuhanga yirinda
not blather. ubwenge ntabwo yivanga. ivuzivuzi

27
13. The known side effect of 13. Ingaruka zizwi ziyi miti 13. Ingaruka mbi zizwi ziterwa
this medicine is severe ni ugukomera cyane no n‟uyumuti ni ukwitsamura no
belching and coughing. gukorora. gukorora bikabije.

14. On doomsday everyone 14. Ku munsi w'imperuka 14. Ku umunsi w‟imperuka buriwese
will be judged according to abantu bose bazacirwa azacibwa urubanza hashingiwe
his/her deeds. urubanza bakurikije ibikorwa kubikorwa bye.
bye.

15. A child should be weaned 15. Umwana agomba konsa 15 Umwana agomba gucutswa
at least on age of five years byibuze afite imyaka itanu, byibuze afite imyaka itanu
old, to avoid stunting kugirango yirinde y‟ubukuru, kugirango hirindwe
igwingira.

16. He was found in bushes 16. Yabonetse mu gihuru 16.Yasanzwe mukigunda umubiriwe
and his body was a mass of kandi umubiri we wari wuzuyeho imibyirabyimba.
bruises. ibikomere byinshi.

17.Poultry is a good project 17.Inkoko ni umushinga 17.Ubworozi bw‟inko ni umushinga

but caring for broods is not mwiza ariko kwita kubyana mwiza ariko kwita ku mishywi
easy ntibyoroshye bibabigoye

18.Wash your hands before 18.Koza intoki mbere yo 18. Jya ukaraba intoki mbere yo
milking a cow and before konka inka na mbere yo gukama inka na mbere yo kubuganiza
pouring milk in jug, it is gusuka amata mu kibindi, ni amata mu icyansi, kirazira kubikira
sacrilege to spill milk sacrilege kumena amata amata.
intentionally. nkana.

19. pitch me if I fall asleep 19. kuntera niba nsinziriye 19 ninsinzira undye akara

20. Nothing for nothing 20. A. Nta kintu na kimwe 20 Amatama masa ntasabira inka
ku busa ighisigati

28
21. Nothing ventured nothing 21. Nta kintu na kimwe 21.Udahingiye abana b‟inyoni
gained cyashizeho ikintu cyungutse ntahingira n‟abe

22. Forewarned is forearmed 22. Byaburiwe mbere 22.Agapfa kaburiwe ni impongo

23. Rome was not built in one 23. Roma ntiyubatswe 23. Ruto ruto nirwo rugendo
day mumunsi umwe

24. IMBARAGA 24. IMBARAGA 24. Fondasiyo Imbaraga ikorera mu

FOUNDATION works in 14 FOUNDATION ikorera mu uturere 14
districts turere 14

25. you should wash this 25. ugomba koza iki 25.Ugoma kujya woza ikigisebe
wound regularly to avoid pus gikomere buri gihe burigihe kugirango kitaza mo
kugirango wirinde gusunika amashyira

26. peep through the window 26. reba mu muryango 26. Rungurukira mu idirishya ,
and tell me if that kid did not umbwire niba uriya mwana umbwire niba umwana atisize
smear herself with soot atarisize wenyine imbyiro

27. louse, flea, bedbugs and 27. igituba, isazi, ibitanda 27. Inda, imbaragasa, Ibiheri ndetse
cockroach are parasites that hamwe na cockroach ni n‟inyenzi ni udukoko duterwa ni
are caused by poor hygiene as parasite iterwa nisuku nke isuku nkeya kimwe n‟amaga
well as warts and jiggers. kimwe nudusimba na jiggers. n‟amavunja.

28. MINAFFET and 28. MINAFFET na 28.Minisiteri Y‟Ububanyi

MIFOTRA, are ones of MIFOTRA, ni imwe muri n‟Amahanga n‟Ubutwererane
Rwandan ministries that offer minisiteri yu Rwanda itanga (MINAFFET) na Minisiteri
good services. serivisi nziza. y‟Abakozi n‟Umurimo(MIFOTRA)
nizimwe muri Minisiteri zitanga
serivisi nziza mu uRwanda.

29. If you have a hiccup, drink 29. Niba ufite hiccup, unywe 29.Igihe ugize isepfu, nywa amazi
water or put a piece of paper amazi cyangwa ushire cyangwa ushyire agapapuro

29
on forehead as kids do. urupapuro kuruhanga nkuko mumpanga nkuko abana bajya
abana babikora. babigenza.

30. LAW Nº27/2016 OF 30. ITEGEKO Nº27 / 2016 30. ITEGEKO Nº27/2016 RYO KU
08/07/2016 GOVERNING YO KU WA 08/07/2016 WA 08/07/2016 RIGENA
MATRIMONIAL REGIMES, LETA Y‟UBUYOBOZI IMICUNGIRE Y‟UMUTUNGO
DONATIONS AND BWA MATRIMONIAL, W‟ABASHYINGIRANYWE,
SUCCESSIONS INGABIRE N'UBUNTU IMPANO N‟IZUNGURA
Article 29: Types of donations Ingingo ya 29: Ubwoko Ingingo ya 29: ubwoko bw‟impano
The types of family donations bwimpano Ubwoko Ubwoko bw‟impano zitanzwe
are the following: bwimpano zumuryango nizi murwego rw‟umuryango ni ubu
zikurikira: bukurikira:
1° inter vivos donations; 1 ° impano ya vivos; 1° Impano zitanzwe hagati
y‟abakiriho;
2° legacy. 2 ° umurage. 2° Indagano.
Article 45: Revocation of Ingingo ya 45: Kwamburwa Ingingo ya 45: Iseswa ry‟ indagano
legacy A legacy may be umurage Umurage Indagano yose cyangwa igice cyayo
revoked in whole or in part urashobora kuvaho muri ishobora guseswa iyo ibishingiwe ho
where the conditions for its rusange cyangwa igice aho by‟ingenzi kugirango igire agaciro
validity are not met. ibisabwa kugirango agaciro bitubahurijwe.
kayo katujujwe.

31. 14° “Machine Registration 31. 14° “Kode yo 14° “Nimero yihariye y‟imashini”
Code (MRC)” means Kwiyandikisha Imashini (MRC) bisobanura nomero yihariye
Certified Invoicing System„s (MRC)” bisobanura Sisitemu y‟uburyo bwo gutanga
unique serial number with yo Kwemeza inyemezabuguzi ikanagaragaza ko
designation of its certificate Inyemezabuguzi 'nimero bwemewe
yihariye idasanzwe hamwe
no kwerekana icyemezo
cyayo

32. I saw a bitch and its 3 32. Nabonye igituba nimbwa 32. Nabonye imbwakazi n‟ibibwana
puppies chasing a monkey and zacyo 3 ziruka inkende byayo bitatu irikwirukankana inkende

30
its infants. Then monkey nimpinja. Maze Inkende n‟inzavumba zayo. Inkende yurira
climbed a pine tree. yuriye igiti cy'inanasi. igiti cy‟ipinusi

33. After his arrestation , he is 33. Amaze gufatwa, 33. Nyuma yogufatwa, arafunzwe
prisoned to avoid flight risk. arafunzwe kugirango yirinde kugirango hirindwe ko yatoroka.
impanuka.

34. Procurement of agriculture 34. Kugura Kugura inyongeramusaruro

inputs such as fertilizers and inyongeramusaruro z‟ubuhinzi nk‟ifumbire n‟imbuto,
seeds, land preparation such zubuhinzi nkifumbire gutegura ubutaka nko kurima
as first ploughing or tilling, nimbuto, gutegura ubutaka cyangwa gutabira, Gucoga ndetse no
harrowing/levelling, labor for nko guhinga bwa mbere kuringaniza intabire, ibikorwa byo
harvest, mechanization, cyangwa guhinga, guhinga / gusarura, guhingisha imashini, kuhira
irrigation, etc. kuringaniza, umurimo wo n‟ibindi.
gusarura, gukoresha
imashini, kuhira, nibindi.

35 Affordable loans from 8% 35 Inguzanyo zoroshye kuva Inguzanyo ziciriritse zishyurwa

per annum 8% kumwaka inyungu ya 8% k‟umwaka

36. Up to 10 years with a 36. Kugera kumyaka 10 kugera ku myaka 10, harimo n‟igihe
grace period hamwe nigihe cyubuntu cyo gusonerwa

37. Commercialization and 37.Ubucuruzi no De-risque Ubucuruzi no kugabanya ingorane

De-risking for agricultural yo guhindura ubuhinzi: zijyanye no guteza imbere
transformation: ibikomoka k‟ubuhinzi;

38. Then Samuel took a stone, 38. Samweli afata ibuye, Maze Samweli yenda ibuye, arishinga
and set it between Mizpah and arishyira hagati ya Mizipa na hagati y‟I Misipa n‟I Sheni, arihimba
Shen, and called the name of Sheni, ahamagara izina rya izina Ebenezeri ati” Uwiteka
it Eben-ezer, saying, Hitherto Ebeni-ezeri, avuga ati: yaratuzahuye kugeza n‟ubu.” (1
hath Jehovah helped us.( 1 “Kugeza ubu Yehova samweli 7:13)
samuel 7:13) yaradufashije .(1 samweli
7:13)

31
 39.In my young days, children 39.Mu minsi yanjye y'ubuto, Nkiri umwana, abana bajyaga
used to Glean where they abana bakundaga guhunika bahumba aho basaruye.
have harvested aho basaruye

40. You can be a rich or you 40. Urashobora kuba Ntugacike intege, Ushobora kuba
can die try. Never give up. umukire cyangwa ushobora umukire cyangwa ugapfa ugerageza.
gupfa gerageza. Ntuzigere
ucogora.

2nd Text

SL TL by GOOGLE Translate TL by Professional Translator

English Kinyarwanda Kinyarwanda
Traditional Rwandan bee Gucunga inzuki zo mu Rwanda Ubworozi bw‟inzuki bukoresha
keeping and honey experience n'uburambe bw'ubuki uburyo gakondo no gutunganya
ubuki mu Rwanda
Activity description Ibisobanuro by'ibikorwa Uko ubworozi bw’inzuki
bukorwa
Bee keeping, and traditional Kubika inzuki, kandi Ubworozi bw‟inzuki ndetse
nogutunganya ubuki
production of honey is umusaruro gakondo w'ubuki
hifashishijwe uburyo gakondo
urakwirakwira mu Rwanda.
widespread in Rwanda. Honey nibwo buryo buhuriweho mu
Ubuki ni ibiryo byingufu Rwanda. Ubuki bwifitemo ibitera
is a high energy food often used nyinshi bikoreshwa imbaraga kukigero cyohejuru,
as a sweetener in tea or when nkibiryoheye icyayi cyangwa akenshi bukunze kwifashishwa
nk‟ikirungo nyongera buryohe
baking. Honey also has mugihe cyo guteka. Ubuki
bufite kandi imiti kandi mu mucyayi cyangwa mugihe botsa
medicinal properties and in Rwanda bukoreshwa kenshi ibikomoka ku ifarini. Ubuki
kandi bwifashishwa mubuvuzi,
Rwanda it is often used to help mu gufasha gukiza ibicurane
mu Rwanda bukunze
cure mild colds, sore throats, byoroheje, kubabara mu gukoreshwa mukuvura ibicurane
muhogo, inkorora no byoroheje, kubabara mu
coughs and applied on wounds.
gukoreshwa ku bikomere. muhogo, inkorora ndetse
n‟ibikomere.

Ubumenyi kubijyanye
The bee keeping experience Uburambe bwo kubika inzuki
n‟ubworozi bw‟inzuki uza
starts in the front of the Stone butangirira imbere ya Saloon bukura imbere ya Stone Saloon
Saloon in Rugamba Village Kibuye mumudugudu wa mu mudugudu wa Rugamba aho

32
where you will meet your Rugamba aho uzahurira uzahurira nugusobanurira
guide. You will start by nuyobora. Uzatangira wiga ibijyanye n‟inzuki. Uzatangira
usobanurirwa ibijyanye
learning about the Rwandan bee kubyerekeye inzuki zo mu n‟ubworozi bw‟inzuki
keeping tradition. After this you Rwanda zikomeza imigenzo. bwagakondo. Nyuma yaho,
will learn how to create a Nyuma yibi uzamenya uburyo uzigishwa kuboha
umuzinga/umutiba
traditional beehive using wood, bwo gukora inzuki gakondo
wakinyarwanda wifashishije
banana fibers and cow dung. ukoresheje ibiti, fibre yigitoki n ibiti, ibihunda/ibirere by‟insina
You will join the members of amase yinka. Uzifatanya ndetse n‟amase y‟inka.
Uzifatanya kandi n‟abaturage
the community while making nabanyamuryango mugihe
mugihe uzaba urikuboha umutiba
your own beehive. ukora inzuki zawe. wawe.

After you have constructed the Numara kubaka inzuki Numara kuboha umutiba wawe,
beehive you will carry it to uzayitwara kugirango
uzawujyana kuwusimbuza undi
replace one of the existing usimbuze imwe mu nzuki
beehives which is ready for zisanzwe ziteguye gusarurwa.
wegereje guhakurwa. Ikindi
harvest. Be advised that you Mugire inama yuko
will be expected to carry the uzategerezwa gutwara inzuki twakubwira nuko, umutiba
beehive in the traditional way muburyo gakondo kumutwe
uwikorera muburyo bwagakondo
on your head. If you have not wawe. Niba utarigeze ubikora
done this before you will get a mbere yuko uzabona amasomo
kumutwe. Niba ari ubwambere
crash course in this art. yo guhanuka muri ubu
buhanzi. ubikoze, bizabanza kugutonda.

Numara gusimbuza umutiba

After replacing one of the Nyuma yo gusimbuza imwe mu
uwawe mushyashya wakoze,
beehives with your newly nzuki ninzuki zawe nshya
noneho uzaba ushobora guhakura
constructed beehive, your are zubatswe ubu uriteguye
ubuki. Uzahabwa ibikoresho
now ready to harvest honey. gusarura ubuki. Uzahabwa
byubwirinzi kugirango
You will be provided safety ibikoresho byumutekano,
zitakurwinga nk‟ingofero ,
equipment, including headgear, harimo igitambaro cyo
inzitira nzuki ndetse n‟uturinda
a net and gloves. Smoke from mumutwe, inshundura na
ntoki. Umwotsi uturuka mubiti
traditional wood is used to gants. Umwotsi uva mu biti
gakondo wifashishwa
subdue the bees while the gakondo ukoreshwa
muguhashya inzuki mugihe
33
beehive is opened. muguhashya inzuki mugihe umutiba w‟inzuki upfunduye.
inzuki zifunguye.

After the beehive is opened, the Umuvumvu umaze Nyuma yogufungura umutiba,
fresh honey is scraped of the gukingurwa, ubuki bushya ubuki buba bushobora gukurwa
honey cakes. You will have the bwakuweho imigati yubuki. mubishashara bityo ushobora
opportunity to taste the fresh Uzagira amahirwe yo kuryoha kurya kubuki bwiza ukimara
honey straight after the harvest. ubuki bushya nyuma yo guhakura.
gusarura.

Before saying goodbye, you Mbere yo gusezera, uzagira Mbere yogusezera, ushobora
will have the possibility to buy amahirwe yo kugura ubuki kuboneraho amahirwe yo kugura
fresh honey straight from the bushya muri koperative. ubuki bwiza muri koperative.
cooperative.

About the organizer Ibyerekeye uwateguye Imikorere ya koperative

The Twitezimbere Association Ishyirahamwe Twite Aba Asosiyasiyo Twitezimbere

is composed of bee keepers and rigizwe n'abavumvu kandi igizwe n‟abanyamuryango

rifite abanyamuryango 15. b‟abavumvu 15. Kimwe nandi

has 15 members. Like many
Kimwe n'indi miryango masosiyasiyo mu Rwanda ,
other communities in Rwanda, myinshi yo mu Rwanda, Twitezimbere itanga ubuki
hifashishijwe uburyo gakondo,
Twitezimbere bee keepers aborozi b'inzuki Twite bash
batanga ubuki bakoresheje ubuki abanyamuryango
produce honey using traditional
uburyo gakondo bwo babukoresha mungo ndetse
methods for home use and to gukoresha urugo no kugurisha bakanabugurisha kugirango

amafaranga yiyongera. babone inyungu.

sell for extra income.

Ihuriro ritanga ubuvumvu mu Iyi Asosiyasiyo, ikoresha

The association offers bee
rwego rw’uburambe ubworozi bw‟inzuki nkakimwe
keeping as part of their
bw’ubukerarugendo mubikorwa by‟ubukerarugendo
community-based tourism
34
experiences. bushingiye ku baturage. mugace ikoreramo.

The experience starts from one Ubunararibonye butangirira Ubumenyi butangirira kurizimwe
of the bee keepers‟ homes, murugo rumwe rwabashinzwe mungo z‟abavumvu, aho
where you will learn how to inzuki, aho uziga uburyo bwo wigishwa kuboha imitiba
make different types of gukora ubwoko butandukanye itandukanye yagakondo ikoze
traditional beehives from wood, bwinzuki gakondo ziva mubiti, mubiti, ibirere ndetse n‟amase
banana fibres and cow dung. fibre yigitoki n amase yinka. y‟inka, wigishwa kandi uko
You will then take the local Uzahita ujyana inzuki zaho bajyana imitiba muruvumbu
beehives to the apiary and kuri apiary hanyuma hanyuma ukaba wahakura ubuki
collect fresh (warm) honey, ukusanyirize ubuki bushya ushobora no kurya ho.
which you can taste. (bushyushye), ushobora
kuryoherwa.

To ensure your safety and Kugirango umenye umutekano Kugirango wite kubwirinzi
security, and to boost your wawe n'umutekano wawe, no ndetse n‟umutekano unongere
experience while collecting kongera uburambe bwawe ubumenye bwawe mugihe
fresh honey, the association will mugihe ukusanya ubuki uriguhakura, Asosiyasiyo iguha
provide protective clothes such bushya, ishyirahamwe imyenda y‟ubwirinzi nk‟ingofero
as a bee-keepers‟ veil and rizatanga imyenda ikingira y‟abavumvu ndetse n‟uturinda
gloves. However, you are nk'umwenda ukingiriza inzuki ntoki. Bityo rero, ukangurirwa
requested to bring/wear long hamwe na gants. Ariko, kwambara ipantaro ndende
trousers shirts with long sleeves urasabwa kuzana / kwambara ndetse n‟umupira w‟amaboko
or jackets ishati ndende ipantaro ifite maremare cyangwa ijaketi.
amaboko maremare cyangwa
ikoti

35
4.2. DATA ANALYSIS
From the outset, the researcher‟s main objective was to assess the quality of translations
produced by Google Translate in rendering from English to Kinyarwanda. The researcher has
then explored several Issues in translation produced by Google Translate. Therefore, this section
will discuss those issues.

1. Proper Names

Normally proper names are not translated but sometimes Google Translate tends to translate
them

Source text Target by Google Target text by a Translator

1.Joy Mugarura is a ,,,,,, 1.Byishimo Mugarura ni…. 1.Joy Mugarura ni…..
The bee keeping experience Uburambe bwo kubika inzuki Ubumenyi kubijyanye
starts in the front of the Stone butangirira imbere ya Saloon n‟ubworozi bw‟inzuki uza
Saloon …… Kibuye…… bukura imbere ya Stone
Saloon………..
In above table, it is seen that proper names Joy and Mugarura and Stone Saloon were translated
while they should remain as they are. Therefore, while translating using Google Translate, one
should pay attention by being vigilant on proper names.

2. Abbreviations and acronyms

Translating abbreviation and acronyms using Google Translate is still a problem because
sometimes it is not familiar with them.

Source text Target by Google Target text by a Translator

Joy Mugarura is a 11 m.o. Byishimo Mugarura ni 11 Joy Mugarura ni umwana
…. m.o….. w‟umukobwa uri mukigero
cy‟ amezi 11 ……
28. MINAFFET and 28. MINAFFET na 28.Minisiteri Y‟Ububanyi
MIFOTRA, are ones of MIFOTRA, ni imwe muri n‟Amahanga n‟Ubutwererane
Rwandan ministries that offer minisiteri yu Rwanda itanga (MINAFFET) na Minisiteri
good services. serivisi nziza. y‟Abakozi
n‟Umurimo(MIFOTRA)

36
 nizimwe muri Minisiteri
zitanga serivisi nziza mu
Rwanda.

The above table, Google translate does not know the full meaning of given abbreviations and
acronyms and it ends up transferring them in target text while they really have equivalent in
target language as it can be seen in Translator‟s translation. This brings great attention to the user
of Google translate that he/she must pay attention on translation of acronyms and abbreviation
while using Google translate to ensure quality translation.Abrevison should be translated in full
and their short forms should be written in bracks after a full meaning.

3. Unnecessary borrowing

Google does not notify to not having or recognizing a certain term, thus it transfers it directly in
target text.

Source text Target by Google Target text by a Translator

3. Love goes with nostalagia 3. Urukundo rujyana na 3. Urukundo n‟urukumbuzi
nostalagia biragendana.
11. All farts do not …. 11. Farts zose ntabwo …. 11. Imisuzi yose siko …
24. IMBARAGA 24. IMBARAGA 24. Fondasiyo Imbaraga
FOUNDATION works ..... FOUNDATION ikorera … ikorera …..
29. If you have a hiccup… 29. Niba ufite hiccup… 29.Igihe ugize isepfu…..
37. Commercialization and 37.Ubucuruzi no De-risque .. Ubucuruzi no kugabanya
De-risking…… ingorane….

The above table shows the way google translate fails to translate some words like nostalagia
which is urukumbuzi,farts which is imisuzi, foundation which is Fondasiyo, hiccup which is
isepfu and De-risque which is kugabanya ibyago… this failure of not translating some terms by
Google led to the unnecessary borrowing which sometimes confuses reader and leads to the poor
quality translation. A translator should make a research while he finds untranslated word from
Google translation.

37
 4. Mistranslation

Sometimes Google mistranslates some terms by adding unintended meaning and goes beyond
context.

Source text Target by Google Target text by a Translator

27. louse, flea, bedbugs and 27. igituba, isazi, ibitanda 27. Inda, imbaragasa, Ibiheri
cockroach are parasites that hamwe na cockroach ni ndetse n‟inyenzi ni udukoko
are caused by poor hygiene as parasite iterwa nisuku nke duterwa ni isuku nkeya kimwe
well as warts and jiggers. kimwe nudusimba na jiggers. n‟amaga n‟amavunja.

In above table, Google totally mistranslated the names of given organisms, example: Louse is
inda not igituba, flea is imbaragasa not isazi, bedbugs are imperi or ibiheri not ibitanda,
cockroach is inyenzi no need of borrowing, parasites is udukoko no need of borrowing, warts is
amaga not udusimba and jiggers are amavunja no need of borrowing. The researcher thought that
the words which are mistranslated are either not yet registered in Google‟s database or they are
misregistared in Google translate. However, GT users should be vigilant to those issues.

5. Translating date format and layout

All language do not have the same style of writing date, some have their particular format that
they use differ from other languages. But Google fails to realize this issue.

Source text Target by Google Target text by a Translator

She was last evaluated by Aheruka gusuzumwa na Dr. Aheruka gusuzumwa
Drs. On 11/12/2021. Ku ya 11/12/2021. n‟abaganga ku wa 12/11/2021

In this table, the date in source text are written in an American style, means (month/day/year =

11/12/2021) and Google Translate has maintained it in the target text while the common format
in Kinyarwanda is (day/month/year = 12/11/2021). Therefore, Google Translate users should pay
attention on date format to avoid confusing their readers.

38
 5. Ambiguity

Sometimes Google‟s translation output is of poor quality due to the irrelevant ambiguity, where
produced translation seems to be meaningless or confusing.

Source text Target by Google Target text by a Translator

32. I saw a bitch and its 3 32. Nabonye igituba nimbwa 32. Nabonye imbwakazi
puppies chasing a monkey zacyo 3 ziruka inkende n‟ibibwana byayo bitatu
and its infants. Then monkey nimpinja. Maze Inkende irikwirukankana inkende
climbed a pine tree. yuriye igiti cy'inanasi. n‟inzavumba zayo. Inkende
yurira igiti cy‟ipinusi

In above table, if the reader reads Google translate, he will be confused how igituba which is
vagina owns dogs and inkende n‟impinja which is monkey and babies in literal. The reader will
have ambiguity picture in her/his mind. However, the correct translation is in Translator‟s
column. The research thought that, this ambiguity was caused by the way Google does not know
the specific terms given to the animals and their young ones in Kinyarwanda.

6. Nonequivalent

Google translate fails to translate in term of equivalent in some cultural context, like idioms,
proverbs etc…

Source text Target by Google Target text by a Translator

21. Nothing ventured nothing 21. Nta kintu na kimwe 21.Udahingiye abana b‟inyoni
gained cyashizeho ikintu cyungutse ntahingira n‟abe

22. Forewarned is forearmed 22. Byaburiwe mbere 22.Agapfa kaburiwe ni

impongo

23. Rome was not built in one 23. Roma ntiyubatswe 23. Ruto ruto nirwo rugendo
day mumunsi umwe

In above table Google translate failed to translate English proverbs into Kinyarwanda, while
those proverbs have equivalent in Kinyarwanda but Google does not detect them. This issues of

39
not having equivalent leads to the poor translation quality due to the non equivalent, and Google
translate tends to adapt by using literal translation while it was not needed.

7. Choice of word

Sometimes Google translate misses an appropriate word that fits with context conveyed in source
text and end up using weak terms.

Source text Target by Google Target text by a Translator

6. My stepmother is….. 6. Mama wa mama wanjye 6.Mukadata ni …….
ara…
17.Poultry is a good project 17.Inkoko ni umushinga 17.Ubworozi bw‟inkoko ni
but caring for broods is not mwiza ariko kwita kubyana umushinga mwiza ariko kwita
easy ntibyoroshye ku imishywi bibabigoye
25. you should wash this 25. ugomba koza iki gikomere 25.Ugoma kujya woza
wound regularly to avoid pus buri gihe kugirango wirinde ikigisebe burigihe kugirango
gusunika kitaza mo amashyira
Traditional Rwandan bee Gucunga inzuki zo mu Uburyo gakondo nyarwanda
keeping ….. Rwanda ….. bwo korora inzuki ….
After you have constructed Numara kubaka inzuki Numara kuboha umutiba
the beehive you will carry it uzayitwara kugirango wawe, uzawujyana
to replace one of the existing usimbuze imwe mu nzuki kuwusimbuza undi wegereje
beehives which is ready for zisanzwe ziteguye guhakurwa.
harvest. gusarurwa.

In this table, all bolded and underlined words are badly chosen by Gooogle translate because, my
stepmother is not translated as Mama wa mama wange but it is mukadata, poultry is not inkoko
but it is ubworozi bw‟inkoko, broods is not translated as ibyana but it is Imishywi, pus is not
gusunika but it is amashyira, beekeeping is not gucunga inzuki but is ubworozi
bw‟inzuki/ubuvumvu, to construct beehive, is not translated as kubaka inzuki but is kuboha
umuzinga/umutiba, beehive is not inzu but it is umuzinga/umutiba and to collect or haverst
honey is not gusarura ubuki , the term usually used is guhakura. All above translation does not

40
sound natural due to the poor choice of words, translators are advised to link their general
knowledge to the Google translate‟s output to ensure translation quality for their reader.

8. Omission of some terms

Google translate tends to omit some terms which should be the key word for a sentence or
translation unit and this leads to the production of different meaning from what were intended in
source text.

Source text Target by Google Target text by a Translator

26. peep through the window 26. reba mu muryango 26. Rungurukira mu idirishya ,
and tell me if that kid did not umbwire niba uriya mwana umbwire niba umwana atisize
smear herself with soot atisize wenyine imbyiro
The Twitezimbere Ishyirahamwe Twite Aba Asosiyasiyo Twitezimbere
Association is composed of rigizwe n'abavumvu kandi igizwe n‟abanyamuryango
bee keepers and has 15 rifite abanyamuryango 15. b‟abavumvu 15.
members

It is seen in above table that, Google has omitted some words, such as window and soot, this
transformed a sentence to be incomplete because by comparing GT and HT, one finds two texts
to be different in meaning. While translating using Google Translate one is advised to check if
all translation units are there to avoid omission.

9. Translating official/ legal document

While translating using Google translate one should be careful because there are accepted term
and registers to be used in official document especially in Official Gazette, Judgment, birth
certificate, etc..

Source text Target by Google Target text by a Translator

33. After his arrestation , he is 33. Amaze gufatwa, 33. Nyuma yogufatwa,
prisoned to avoid flight risk. arafunzwe kugirango yirinde arafunzwe kugirango hirindwe
impanuka. ko yatoroka.
30. LAW Nº27/2016 OF 30. ITEGEKO Nº27 / 2016 30. ITEGEKO Nº27/2016
08/07/2016 GOVERNING YO KU WA 08/07/2016 RYO KU WA 08/07/2016

41
MATRIMONIAL LETA Y’UBUYOBOZI RIGENA IMICUNGIRE
REGIMES, DONATIONS BWA MATRIMONIAL, Y‟UMUTUNGO
AND SUCCESSIONS INGABIRE N'UBUNTU W‟ABASHYINGIRANYWE,
IMPANO N‟IZUNGURA
Article 29: Types of donations Ingingo ya 29: Ubwoko Ingingo ya 29: ubwoko
bwimpano. bw‟impano
The types of family donations Ubwoko bwimpano Ubwoko bw‟impano zitanzwe
are the following: zumuryango nizi zikurikira: murwego rw‟umuryango ni
ubu bukurikira:
1° inter vivos donations; 1 ° impano ya vivos; 1° Impano zitanzwe hagati
y‟abakiriho;
2° legacy. 2 ° umurage. 2° Indagano.
Article 45: Revocation of Ingingo ya 45: Kwamburwa Ingingo ya 45: Iseswa ry‟
legacy A legacy may be umurage Umurage urashobora indagano
revoked in whole or in part kuvaho muri rusange cyangwa Indagano yose cyangwa igice
where the conditions for its igice aho ibisabwa kugirango cyayo ishobora guseswa iyo
validity are not met. agaciro kayo katujujwe. ibishingiwe ho by‟ingenzi
kugirango igire agaciro
bitubahurijwe.

In above table, the extract was taken from “LAW Nº27/2016 OF 08/07/2016 GOVERNING
MATRIMONIAL REGIMES, DONATIONS AND SUCCESSIONS” it is tringual document but
if one translates using google translate , the output does not look similar with the way they
translated in orginal LAW. Therefore while translating an official document one should assess
and ask exparts in order to provide quality translation because that of Google is of low quality to
be admitted. One may assess similar trusted document from online to verify the terms which are
used.

10. Grammatical interference

In this section, Google Translate commits different grammatical stracture errors, tenses, syntactic
errors etc…

42
Source text Target by Google Target text by a Translator
40. You can be a rich or you 40. Urashobora kuba umukire Ntugacike intege, Ushobora
can die try. Never give up. cyangwa ushobora gupfa kuba umukire cyangwa ugapfa
gerageza. Ntuzigere ucogora. ugerageza.
14. On doomsday everyone 14. Ku munsi w'imperuka 14. ku umunsi w‟imperuka
will be judged according to abantu bose bazacirwa buriwese azacibwa urubanza
his/her deeds. urubanza bakurikije ibikorwa hashingiwe kubikorwa bye.
bye.
5. Riddles, wellerism, 5. Ibisobanuro, gusebanya, 5.Ibisakuzo,rukina
idioms, poems and proverbs imvugo, ibisigo n'imigani mubikomeye,
are not easily translated into ntabwo byoroshye guhindurwa inshoberamahanga, imivugo
another languages mundimi zindi ndetse n‟imigani
y‟imigenurano biragorana
kubihindura muzindi ndimi

This table shows issues relatited to the grammatical issues, “you can” is not translated as
“urashobora” this is not grammatical rule of Kinyarwanda , this expression is used in some of
Kinyarwanda dialects like Ikirera but in official Kinyarwanda is rarely used, “everyone” was
translated as abantubose while it is buriwese, this may be correct but does not sound
Kinyarwanda grammar, “….are not easily translated into another languages” this should not be
“ntabwo byoroshye guhindurwa mundimi zindi” because this is not best Kinyarwanda syntax, it
should better be “muzindi ndimi”.

11. Cultural context

Google translate fails to link cultural orientation of both languages, this means that, the research
finds it hard to translate cultural matters with using Google translate because,its output is
different from what culture owners use and belief and leads to the culture violation. Study the
table bellow and compare those translation, one will find that Google translate has translated
poor and nonquality translation.

43
Source text Target by Google Target text by a Translator
8. People with physical 8. Ababana n'ubumuga 8.Abafite ubumuga
disability, blinds, deaf and bw‟umubiri, impumyi, bw‟ingingo, ubumuga bwo
dumb have equal right as abatumva n'ibiragi bafite kutareba, ubumuga bwo
other people in Rwanda. uburenganzira bungana kutumva ndetse nubwo
nk'abandi bantu mu Rwanda. kutavuga bose bafite
uburenganzira bungana
n‟ubwabandi mu Rwanda.
18.Wash your hands before 18.Koza intoki mbere yo 18. Jya ukaraba intoki mbere
milking a cow and before konka inka na mbere yo yo gukama inka na mbere yo
pouring milk in jug, it is gusuka amata mu kibindi, ni kubuganiza amata mu icyansi,
sacrilege to spill milk sacrilege kumena amata kirazira kubikira amata.
intentionally. nkana.

The errors are presented in bold, and their corrections are afound in third column of translator in
above table.

12. Nonsense

By examining the Google‟s outputs, the research found meaningless parts from Google
translate‟s translation as they are shown in following table in bold.

Source text Target by Google Target text by a Translator

You will start by learning Uzatangira wiga Uzatangira usobanurirwa
about the Rwandan bee kubyerekeye inzuki zo mu ibijyanye n‟ubworozi
keeping tradition. Rwanda zikomeza imigenzo. bw‟inzuki bwagakondo.
After replacing one of the Nyuma yo gusimbuza imwe Numara gusimbuza umutiba
beehives with your newly mu nzuki ninzuki zawe uwawe mushyashya wakoze,
constructed beehive your are nshya zubatswe ubu noneho uzaba ushobora
now ready to harvest honey. uriteguye gusarura ubuki. guhakura ubuki.
After the beehive is opened, Umuvumvu umaze Nyuma yogufungura umutiba,
the fresh honey is scraped of gukingurwa, ubuki bushya ubuki buba bushobora
the honey cakes. You will bwakuweho imigati yubuki. gukurwa mubishashara bityo

44
have the opportunity to taste Uzagira amahirwe yo ushobora kurya kubuki bwiza
the fresh honey straight after kuryoha ubuki bushya ukimara guhakura.
the harvest nyuma yo gusarura.

Obiviously, Google translate, has produced nonquality translation, like „Umuvumvu umaze
gukingurwa” this statement has no meaning and „Uzagira amahirwe yo kuryoha ubuki etc…
check the table above.

13. Opposite meaning

Sometimes, Google translate produces opposite meaning and sense from what is said in source
text, this can be seen in following table.

Source text Target by Google Target text by a Translator

15. A child should be weaned 15. Umwana agomba konsa 15 umwana agomba gucutswa
at least at age of five years byibuze afite imyaka itanu, byibuze afite imyaka itanu
old, to avoid stunting kugirango yirinde y‟ubukuru, kugirango
hirindwe igwingira.
In source text, it is said that “ a child should be weaned” but Google has oppositely said that a
child shoud breat feed. However, translators should pay attention on this inverse as it can
misread readers.

14. Unnaturalness

Some of Google Translate‟s output translation do not sound natural, example in the following
table

Source text Target by Google Target text by a Translator

19. pitch me if I fall asleep 19. kuntera niba nsinziriye 19 Ninsinzira undye akara

In above context, it is meaning that one has to wake/rouse another if she/he falls asleep but
Google has captured different meaning and unnaturalness.

45
 15. Style

The translations produced by Google translate are not organized in terms of form, alignment,
font, capitalization, punctuation, format, layout etc…depending on the style of source text.
Getting back to the data presention section, one can find that target text from Google translate is
not well organized, some are in bold, there is ellipsis issues that the user has to organize, this is
the same case when the source text is in table format sometimes the segment of source text and
target text are not parelle with same length, and this takes Translator much time organizing table
rows. Therefore, it is the user‟s duties to invest their skills in using Google translate in order to
organize their work.

IV.3. conclusion
This chapter aimed to present and analyse data. The research found different issues in translation
produced by Google translation and some of them were analysed in regard to the research
questions and hypotheses of this research. Therefore, the pregenerated research questions and
hypotheses are positive becaused what they revealed is true. GT‟s translation of English and
Kinyarwanda is still of low quality that deserves great attention because Google‟s translation is
still questionable as it only produces a translation draft which has to be edited by a translator.
And this is an extremely exhausting task because in this case the translator performs a double
work: editing/revising and correcting a poor translation.

46
CHAPTER FIVE: GENERAL CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. General Conclusion

Entirely, the intention behind this research was to assessTranslation quality of Google Translate
from English to Kinyarwanda. As it was indicated in Chapter one , the hypotheses, objectives
and research questions of this research lead and were evaluated in detail because they were the
backbone of this research.However, we found out that on the question whether “Google
Translate may produce English into Kinyarwanda quality or poor translation” the researcher
found that depending on nature of the text, Google Translate may produce poor or quality but
sometimes GT‟s translation may be regarded as just a draft to be reviewed by professional
translator because it is not yet at the level of working dependently.

In addition, the main cause of GT to produce poor quality translation is the fact that
Kinyarwanda language has very limited digital footprint on the internet, and is new on Google
Translate and Google does not much vocaburaries of Kinyarwanda in its data base.The only
suggested solution to the question of improving GT is to add more Kinyarwanda vocabularies in
Google‟s date base by putting effort on cultural context, colloquial, equivalence of proverbs and
precise Kinyarwanda grammatical stractures and idioms, and correcting some of problems, errors
and weakness of GT aforementioned in data analysis of this study.

In particular, our findings highlighted some weaknesses of GT, Google fails to translate cultural
context, proverbs equivalence, acronyms and abbreviations, meditacal and legal terms, some
cloquials and words with more meaning etc...that the more a text is complex the more GT fails to
translate it and ends up producing poor translation quality.However, we can nclude that, no
matter how machine translation will be improved, Human /professional translator is very far
from being replaced by a MT Tool in term of producing quality translation because their
translation outputs will remain as draft for human translators.

Furthermore, translators should develop their linguistic skills and competence (English and
Kinyarwanda) and cultures of both languages to avoid and be able to correct translation errors
produced by Machine Translation. Since the quality of English to Kinyarwanda Google Translate
remains poor, further and deeper investigation concerning the use of Google Translation from
English to Kinyarwanda should be envisaged in the future, to examine the improvement of
Google Translation quality from English to Kinyarwanda.

47
It is great improvement for Kinyarwanda to be the one of language that Google translate from/
into. It is was not easy for Kinyarwanda to be chosen from almost 7000 languages spoken around
the World which made Kinyarwanda to be a member of 133 languages that Google has in it
database. Apart from this achievement, Google Translation quality of Kinyarwanda from or into
other languages is still questionable. The most issues laid in this process are related to the
accuracy, smoothness, completeness, word choice (diction) when transferring from English into
Kinyarwanda and might mislead readers. Differences in the SL and the TL culture caused
problems out of grammar context. Google Translate might identify phrases and idioms verified
by Google, but to comprehend the differences in culture, certain awareness and sense are needed.
Thus, this culture differences can only be recognized by human translators that are aware of such
cultural differences

In some cases, Google Translate failed to comprehend the intention of the sentence and made
omissions of the important message in the target sentence. This omission made the translation
incomplete and resulted in a different meaning. Error caused by referential pronouns was also
common. Google Translate failed to recognise the difference of this grammatical concept
between the English and Kinyarwanda resulting in unreadable sentence caused by the unclear
reference. We can conclude that Google Translation from English into Kinyarwanda, can be
good or bad depending on source text and its content. However, Google translation is not too bad
as some may think and are not too good as some people may think.

Therefore, anyone using Google Translate to translate from English Into Kinyarwanda cannot
accept the results as a fine-end translation product. They should treat Google Translate merely as
a software which make their works faster. It is also important that users review and revise the
translation in term of post editing and proofreading in order to ensure the quality of Google
Translate from English into Kinyarwanda accuracy

Proofreading and post-editing are crucial point because once you misspell a word in the SL or if
the word you are translating is not on Google Translate‟s database, the Google translate will
repeat the word verbatim in TT. Google does not warn you that it was not able to find the
equivalent or appropriate term to use and this may mislead readers thinking that the term/word is
part of TL

However, Google Translate is practically handful for users to help translate few words, phrase,
and particular sentence in general. Google Translate also provides accuracy to some extent
48
depending on languages combination. In the case of English-Kinyarwanda translation, and vice
versa, translation in particular, it is still poor in quality. However, Google Translate Community
can facilitate people to supply and validate proper translation for certain languages, especially
English and Kinyarwanda. Therefore, significant improvements can be made not only by relying
on its algorithm, but also on people‟s participation.

To sum up the review, it can be concluded that Google Translation result is said to be the most
successful machine translation respectively. Its role as the machine Translation has provided
great contribution in the field of translation. Translation is a complex process that involves
complex aspects of language. Therefore, Google Translate as a part of machine translation may
have great deal in this case. Google Translate is merely a machine that can never beat human
translation in term of translation quality. Thus, it may be beneficial to be involved in facilitating
Translators In their translation works, not the main source of translation.

5.2. Recommendations
Given that Machine translation Tools that facilitate translation from or into different languages
were established, they are said to play a big role in translation process and increasing translators‟
productivity, efforts and quality. However, Google Translate is most famous compared to the
other Machines that can handle translation tasks. Nevertheless, in 2016 Google Translate
announced it new system based on artificial neural networking but its translation quality is still
questionable. Due to the fact that GT‟s translation quality from English into Kinyarwanda is still
questionable. Therefore, the following recommendations are made:

5.2.1. To the Translators and all users of Google Translate.

We are thrilled to have Kinyarwanda in Google Translate, and this is great achievement as
translators and Kinyarwanda speakers in general. However, translator and all users of English to
Kinyarwanda Google Translate are recommended to pay attention while using Google Translate
because it has not reached the extent of working independently. Apart from having low quality
translation, Google Translate has no confidential as it uses servers in translation process and
through this process secretes information may be hacked. Therefore, translators and others users
should be careful on the privacy and confidential of information they are translating. Imagine,
translating presidential issues using Google translate, there is possibilities to be hacked as those
online Machine Translations are not secured to be trusted.
49
In addition, Google translate users should invest their skill in Google Translate outputs in term of
proofreading and post editing to ensure translation quality. It is not easy for everyone to
proofread the translation produced by Google Translation, therefore if one knows that he is not
able to do so, he may give it to someone to proofread it for him. The quality of Google Translate
may depends on the purpose of the users, if you think what Google translate produced fits your
purpose then trust it but if not find another alternative.

5.2.2.To the Clients

Nowadays, clients are putting their translation assignment on Google and hand it to the
translators in term of post editing and proofreading, this is not good because sometimes the real
context of the text is changed that translate struggle to link it again. Therefore, translation
assignment should be assigned to the translator as original not duplicate from Google. Clients
should check if the targeted message sound natural and clear, on same way, they should
proofread translated task before confirming acceptance of the translation from translators
because some translators pretend to be professional while they rely on Google translate.
Therefore, client should choose qualified translators to ensure the quality of their translation
goals, privacy and purpose by taking account on their readers.

5.2.3.To the Google translate developers

It is important that Kinyarwanda is one of languages that Google can translate from or into, but
the quality of it translation is still debatable. We would like to recommend Google developers to
work together with Kinyarwanda experts and translators to develop and improve quality of
Kinyarwanda on Google translate than using generated translation as Kinyarwanda has very
limited digital footprint on the internet, and is new on Google Translate. Therefore, Kinyarwanda
needs great improvements so that it will be well translated at least as European language
combinations.

5.3. Suggestions for Further Research

As this research only focused and limited to the translation quality of Google Translate from
English To Kinyarwanda, future research in recommended to ensure the improvement of quality
of Google translate from English into Kinyarwanda. Further Research may be conducted on the
quality of Google translate from Kinyarwanda into English or form Kinyarwanda into other
different languages like from Kinyarwanda into French, Kiswahili etc… vice versa.

50
 References

A translator‟s Thoughts. (2016). Translation techniques: Calque. Retrieved February 12, 2023,
from https://translatorthoughts.com/2016/05/calque/
Agapiev, B. (2016). How does Google translate work? Do they have database for all words
of a particular language? Retrieved January 8, 2023, from
https://www.quora.com/How-doesGoogle-translate-work-Do-they-have-database-
for-all-words-of-a-particular-language.
Aiken, M. (2019). An updated evaluation of Google Translate accuracy. Studies in Linguistics
and Literature, 3(3), 253-260. Retrieved January 18, 2023, from
http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/sll.v3n3p253.
Al-Tuwayrish, R. K. (2015). An evaluative study of machine translation in the EFL scenario of
Saudi Arabia. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(1), 5-10.
Kabir, sms (2016).basic guidelines for research: An introductory Approach for all desplines.
Book Zone publication.
Amilia,I.k., Darmawan E. Y., & Jakarta, S.L.(2020). A study of the translation of Google
translate: An error analysis of the translation of Eliza Riley’s return to
Paradise.Lingua:Jurnal Ilmiah, 16 (2). English Language Education Publishing
Anthony, P. (2014). Exploring translation theories (2ed ). Abingdon: Routledge.
Azer, H. S. (2015). An evaluation of output quality of machine translation :Padideh Software vs.
Google Translate. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(4), 226–237.
Bahri, H. (2016). Google translate as a supplementary tool for learning Malay: A case study at
University Sains Malaysia. Advances in Language and Literary Studies,
7(3),161167.
Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words. USA & Canada: Routledge.
Baker, M.(2006) Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account , London: Routledge.
Basigayabo, P. (2020). Exploring Mona Baker‟s equivalence theory in translating Kinyarwanda
gendered proverbs related to women into English and French.M.A Thesis. Butare:
UR-Huye Campus.
Beier, B.J., Fawcett, A. & Wilson, P. (Ed,2014). Literary translation: Redrawing the
boundaries. England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bhattacharyya, p. ( 2015). Machine translation .Boca Raton, London, New York: CRC Press.
Biguenet, J. and Schulte,R. (Ed, 1992). Theories of translation: An anthology of essay from

51
 Drydan to Derrida.London: University of Chicago press.
Booth, D.A (Ed, 1967). Machine Translation. Amsterdam: North Holland publishing company.
Braha,s .(2016,May). Translation: human vs machine. Retrieved August 8,2022, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339416624_TRANSLATION_HUMA
VS_MACHINE
Brahmana, C. R. P. S., Sofyan, R., & Putri, D. M. (2020). Problems in the application of
Google Translate as a learning media in translation. Language Literacy: Journal
of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching, 4(2), 384-389. Retrieved
January 18, 2023, from https://doi.org/10.30743/ ll.v4i2.2893.
Chan, L.T. (2004 ).Twentieth- Century Chinese translation theory. Hong Kong: Benjamins
Publishing company.
Chen, X. Med., Sandra, A . PhD. and Adam, E. B. PhD. (2016). Evaluating the Accuracy of
Google Translate for Diabetes Education Material. JMIR Diabetes 1(1):e3)
doi:10.2196/diabetes.5848. Retrieved February 12, 2023, from
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/01/the-shallowness-of-
google-translate/551 570/.
Elimina. (2021,June7), Machine Translation challenges. Technical writing. Retrieved August 8,
2022, from https://clickhelp.com/clickhelp-technical-writing-blog/machine-
translation-challenges/
Ferrell, T. (2016). Issues in the machine translation of one language to another language: A
case study of Google Translator. Retrieved August 8, 2020, from
http://srfederation.org/pdf/10/Issues-in-the-machine-translation.pdf
Gestanti, R. A. (2012). Translation Study on Google Translation Result of Senior High School
Selected Texts. IKIP PGRI Madiun.
Ghasemi, H. & Hashemian, M. (2016). A comparative study of Google translate translations: An
error analysis of English-to-Persian and Persian-to-English translations. English
Language Teaching, 9(3), 13–17.
Habeeb, L. S. (2019). Investigate the effectiveness of Google Translate among Iraqi students.
Opcion, 35(21), 2899-2921.
Hedblom, M. (2010). Machine translation – A Rosetta stone for the 21th Century. Retrieved
August 8, 2022, from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Machine-
Translation-A-Rosetta-stone-for-the-21-th-
Hedblom/c9be82015438877fd5567f7b6c3e662c13a3dcf4
52
Hoi, H. T. (2020). Machine Translation and its impact in our modern society. International
Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 9(2), 1918-1921.
AsLing, 59-6.
Hutchins, J. (1992). An Introduction to Machine Translation. London: Academic press.
Schmidt, G. B. (2020). The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society:
Google. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Retrieved February 12, 2023,
from http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483375519.n274.
Karami, O. (2014, January). The brief view on Google Translate machine. Paper presented at the
meeting of the 2014 Seminar in Artificial Intelligence on Natural Language,
German: Keshavarz.
Kroulek, A. (2016). Google Translate Facts you should know. Retrieved Junuary 8, 2022, from
https://www.k-international.com/blog/google-translate-facts/
Läubli, Samuel & Orrego-Carmona, David. (2017). When Google Translate is better than Some
Human Colleagues, those People are no longer Colleagues. In: Translating and
the Computer, London, 16 November 2017 - 17 November 2017. AsLing, 59-6.
McFadden, C. (2017, January 15). Almost everything you need to know about Google‟s history.
Interesting Engineering. Retrieved January 8,2023 from
https://interestingengineering.com/almost-everything-you-need-to-know-
aboutgoogles-history.
Mossop, Brian. 2014. Revising and Editing for Translator. New York: Routledge.
Mugeni,C. (2006) Machine Translation versus Human Translation: a case study of Systran and
Freetranslation. BA Research Work. Butare: UR-Huye Campus.
Mukarukundo,m.n. (2017) The main problems faced by translation undergraduates at University
of Rwanda (HUYE CAMPUS ). BA Research Work. Butare: UR-Huye Campus.
Munday, J. (2012). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (3rd edition):
Routledge.
Murwantono, D. (2008). Applying translation theory and practice in teaching, 73–85. Retrieved
8,January, 2023 from research.unissula.ac.id/file/publikasi/210806010/3925405-
640-1-PB.pdf.
Nasution, D.K. (2016). Machine Translation in Website Localization: Assessing its Translation
Quality. Al-Ishlah: Jurnal Pendidikan Vol.14, (2) p. 1879-1886
.DOI:10.35445/alishlah.v14i1.1308.
Nzeyimana, D. (2012) The room for computer-assisted devices in the modern translator training:
53
 The case study of the National University of Rwanda. BA Research Work. Butare:
UR-Huye Campus.
Pac Tranz. (n.d). The HUGE list of 51 translation types, methods and techniques. Retrieved
February 12, 2023, from https://www.pactranz.com/types-of-translation/
Robertson, P. (2019). Re-overviewing Google Translate Results and Its Implication in Language
Learning· The Asian EFL Journal, 23(3), 5-16. Ekolah Tinggi Bahasa Asing LIA.
Roggers, M. (Ed , 2015). Specialized translation: Shedding the’non-literary’tag. England:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Sager, J.C. (1994). Language engineering and translation: Consequences of automation.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Samwelson, B.G. (2004). A practical guide for translators (4ed ). Great Britain: Crumwell press
LTD
Setiyadi, D., Kuswardani, Y., Sari, D. K., & Martanti, D. A. (2020). Analyzing on English-
Indonesian culture – Specific concept translation by Google Translate.
International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 9(1), 2242-2246.
Shaheen, M. (1991). Theories of translations and their applications to the teaching of English/
Arabic-Arabic/ English translating. University of Glasgow.
Taira, B. R. MD. MPH1., Vanessa K, MD, MPH1 .Aristides, O.NP1 , and Lisa C. , MD, MPH2.
(2019). A Pragmatic Assessment of Google Translate for Emergency Department
Instructions. New York: Published online.DOI: 10.1007/s11606-021-06666-z.
The Kivu Belt. (2021).Traditional Rwandan Bee Keeping and Honey Experience.Retrieved
February 12, 2023, from https://kivubelt.travel/traditional-rwandan-bee-keeping-
and-honey-experience/
Translation European Parliament. (2016). Terminologies. Retrieved February 12, 2023, from
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/translation/en/terminology/what-we-do
Wikipedia. (2016, May 28). Translation. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation.
Winiharti, M., Syihabuddin, & Sudana, D. (2021). On Google translate: Students‟ and lecturers‟
perception of the English translation of Indonesian scholarly articles. Lingua
Cultura, 15(2), 207-214. Retrieved February 12, 2023, from
https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v15i2.7335

54