EXPERIENCES IN THE LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL TRANSLATION OF A BUSINESS QUESTIONNAIRE INTO CHINESE
B. Dawson, University of Technology Sydney
L. Young University of Technology Sydney
I. F. Wilkinson, University of Western Sydney Nepean
Abstract
Cross-Cultural Research - Theoretical Approaches and Techniques
The problems and issues that impair questionnaire equivalence in
cross-cultural research are discussed focusing mainly on linguistic
issues. The English to Chinese translation and back-translation of a
comprehensive questionnaire dealing with purchaser and supplier
relationships in industrial markets is then used as a case study to
highlight some of the issues arising including language structure,
cultural setting and conceptual meaning.
Broadly speaking, there are two approaches to the study of culture:
emic and etic. This distinction was originated by psycho-linguist K.L.
Pike in 1966 to differentiate between phonemics and phonetics (the
study of sounds in one versus all languages) but have since taken on
broad multi-disciplinary applications (Brislin, 1973, Cavusgil and
Das 1997). Research with an anthropologically rooted emic
approach, assumes that human perception, thought, philosophy and
behaviors are embodied in culturally independent linguistic structures
which must be studied independently, not compared. If cultural
perception and behavior are entirely unique, then there can be no
basis for comparison of subjective phenomenon between different
cultures through language, no way of establishing linguistic
equivalence of questionnaires (Osgood, 1975).
Introduction
Marketing systems are embedded in different cultures.
Cross-cultural research involves a process where scientists explore
and compare the similarities and differences in underlying motivation
and manifest behavior found their own and other cultures.
Cross-cultural marketing research is inherently complex as it must
consider and interpret markets in vastly different and often volatile
legal, commercial, financial, linguistic and cultural environments.
Establishing questionnaire equivalence as part of this process is not
easy. Questionnaire equivalence is a basic concern of cross-cultural
research because research results cannot be effectively compared if
respondents have not been given culturally compatible versions of
questions. Researchers must be clear about what is being measured
and why in both cultures or risk pronouncing apples and oranges as
exactly the same for the wrong reasons
In cross-cultural research, all facets of the methodological process
including the symbolic basis for research, the language as embodied
in the questionnaire, are suspect due to potentially flawed perceptions
or bias on the part of scientists. The collaboration of scientists from
different cultural backgrounds, translating and using the same
research instrument in cross-cultural research projects tends to further
complicate problems of bias.
Methodological concerns of those engaged in cross-cultural research
focus on minimizing bias in research design and interpretation.
This paper focuses on linguistic issues in cross-cultural research
questionnaires. These issues are related to the particular example of
the English to Chinese translation and back translation of a
questionnaire dealing with relationships between industrial
purchasers and suppliers. The objective of this paper is to illustrate
how bias in cross-cultural questionnaires can be minimized through
careful consideration of approach, theoretical premise, setting and
linguistic structure .
Research taking an etic approach, attempts to identify theories which
reveal universal laws or similarities rather than differences in human
behavior. Proponents are likely to take the view that differences in
the grammar and semantics of language are superficial - that at a
deeper level there are universal phonemes based on deep cognitive
structures out of which human beings form conceptions about the
world and differentiate conceptual meaning. Furthermore just as
physical objects like autos can be compared in terms of consistent
attributes or dimensions such as weight, height, or volume, so can
subjective cultural phenomenon such as attitudes or feelings.
The "emic" approach does not attempt to generalize beyond cultural
boundaries and so minimizes cultural bias. It is not possible
however except in an anecdotal way to use "emic" research to
generate valid measures for comparative purposes. An etic approach
must somehow choose culture-free parameters to compare in order to
generalize across cultures. The methodological emphasis of
scientists taking an emic approach tends to be on the case study
looking at a piece of reality as part of an integrated framework, while
scientists taking an etic approach rely more on surveys and
experimental procedures.
Often an approach which is meant to be etic, is in fact emic, for
example research based on theories and constructs which are culture
specific. An example is a Western scientist who, unknowingly
steeped in the assumptions of the "humanistic model", proposes that
universal measures of good relationships should include descriptions
like: close, open and cooperative; or good communicators should be
empathetic, positive and supportive. Cultures like Japan or
Indonesia might find such openness crude and insensitive. This,
"pseudo-etic" approach is described by Brislin et al (1973) as the
cardinal sin in cross-cultural research. A theoretical supposition
which aims to establish the universality of such "subjective
goodness" is inevitably flawed as are the conceptual dimensions
designed to measure it.
International marketing practitioners, interested in the transferability
of products, services and strategies across international boundaries
are likely to be more sympathetic toward an etic approach to
cross-cultural research that emphasizes similarities between
countries. This enables the development of comparable constructs
and measures. However, it may not always be possible to study
constructs of interest in this way. The challenge is to somehow
reconcile the emic/etic dilemma, to preserve the integrity of different
cultures while assessing similarities and differences (Douglas, 1983).
Cross cultural researchers suggest that etic constructs be
operationalized using emic concepts, thus establishing at some level
universal constructs, which can serve as the basis for analysis of
related conceptual variables (Mintu et al, 1994; Sperber, 1997,
Triandis, 1976)
Questionnaire Equivalence
In practice it is not an easy task to eliminate perceptual bias or
ethnocentrism inherent in the construction of an appropriate
cross-cultural research instrument. Nevertheless, it is important to
develop a means of assessing the equivalence of information
contained in a questionnaire so that a genuine understanding of
phenomenon shared across cultures is gained and any inherent bias is
known and can be taken into account when interpreting results.
Expert knowledge of cross-cultural issues on the part of researchers
and translators is critical in all cases where judgements about
conceptual meaning of questionnaires are being made (Sanders,
1994).
A number of techniques for assessing questionnaire equivalence have
been suggested (Brislin et al 1973, Cavusgil and Das 1997),
including:

assessing differences in responses of native speakers and
bilinguals

probing for underlying meaning of the answers to questions and
comparing different cultures’ responses.

translation done by a committee of bilinguals who decide on
common meanings

back-translation.
Various factors may lead to differences between translated versions
of a questionnaire not all of which may be serious. These include
conceptual equivalence which relates to the emic/etic issue discussed
above, linguistic issues and setting. In the following we focus on
linguistic issues.
Linguistic Issues
Questionnaire equivalence can be jeopardised simply because the
words and grammar chosen are difficult to translate. Studies
undertaken to determine the characteristics of written English which
translate well have found consistent problems with particular
language forms including: idioms, subjective forms, and the passive
voice (Brislin et al 1973). The use of simple English makes
translation problems less likely to emerge and those that are detected
can be more easily resolved. For example the breakdown of an
abstract technical term like "by-pass valve" into simpler more
concrete language like "valve used to pass fluid in the way not
normally used" will facilitate translation (Brislin et al 1973). But
not all ideas can be expressed or broken down into basic terminology
easily. Complex terminology, particularly when it relates to difficult
subject areas (i.e. technical terms, the law or psychology) can be
problematic. Establishing systematic, comparable frameworks
within which meaning can be established is helpful.
It is the overall meaning rather than precise equivalence which is the
goal in cross cultural meaning. However, differences such as
missing words, or grammatical errors, can highlight other issues.
Meaning is expressed through a composite of individual
concepts/terminology which are pieced together grammatically to
form sentences, paragraphs, etc. Words gain meaning as part of the
linguistic framework where they appear. Linguistics classifies
concepts, and establishes grammatical relationships between them to
establish meaning (Brown 1984). A cabbage is categorized as a type
of vegetable; the meaning of vegetable as an abstract concept is
clarified through the nature of its relationship with both a cabbage
and a carrot. Other types of less hierarchical relationships include
antonyms (adjectives - good & bad) and converse terms (verbs buy
and sell).
The field of linguistics is concerned with establishing a framework or
system of language. Significantly, linguistics also wrestles with the
problem of establishing universals or points of comparison in order
to facilitate understanding of meaning between different cultures
(Corder, 1973). "Recent comparative studies in psycholinguistics
are making it clear that although languages do display superficial
uniquenesses in phonology, grammar and semantics which render
them mutually unintelligible, at a deeper level they display certain
universals which render them mutually translatable" (Osgood, 1975,
p 4).
Several researchers including Triandis (1972) and Osgood (1975)
have used linguistic principles to establish frameworks for meaning
within the context of cross-cultural research. Triandis (1972)
organizes concepts into different levels of abstraction beginning with
more easily discriminable phenomenon (i.e. colors, bread) and
continuing to less easily discriminable and more abstract concepts
such as value orientation. Arriving at comparable cross-cultural
descriptions of abstract phenomenon can involve making explicit
framework dimensions in both cultures. Osgood (1975) uses a
linguistic structure whereby conceptual equivalence is established by
using universal adjectival qualifiers (antonyms ) to establish
underlying similarity as well as subtle, culturally significant
differences in the meaning of concepts.
The process of assessing the equivalence of a back-translated
questionnaire may be an important adjunct to a research project,
yielding important findings related to the theoretical premise under
investigation. While language is key to establishing equivalence,
assessment also refers to theoretical premises as well as important
non-verbal or contextual/environmental variables. Differences in
grammar, types of words used and examination of the structure of the
back translated instrument may provide theoretical insights.
Meaning can be assessed by comprehensive analysis of language as
expressed through verbs, nouns, order of words or lexically. "The
linguist Ferdinand de Saussure stressed early in this century that a
comparative standpoint in linguistics must comprehend both lexicon
and grammar, because what was expressed in grammatical means in
one language would be found expressed by lexical means in another"
(Hymes 1970, p. 330).
Observation of differences in grammar have provided insights into
the nature of cross-cultural possession/ownership, gender
classification/ identification, and pre-occupation with time and
tenses. Focus on word types gives insights into cultural differences
2
e.g. that some languages have nouns, negation and terms denoting
legal entitlement but not the vocabulary to describe them.
Specificity of particular words or concepts (e.g. Eskimos and snow)
may mean special emphasis because of environmental need, as well
as evidence of particular powers of observation and analysis (Hymes,
1970).
translating the questionnaire. The back translation was performed
by a Chinese native permanently residing in Australia, a former legal
translator with an academic background in English and humanities.
The comparison of the translated and back translated questionnaire
was performed primarily by one of the authors who is proficient in
Mandarin and English linguistics.
Methodology
A Case Study of Back Translation
In the remainder of the paper we present the results of a
back-translation exercise undertaken to develop a questionnaire to be
used to conduct industrial marketing-related research in China. The
research is related to the International Marketing and Purchasing
(IMP) program of research which began studying interfirm
relationships in industrial markets in the 1970s (Hakansson 1982,
Ford 1997).
The process of analyzing questionnaire equivalence for the English
and Chinese versions of questionnaire began by classifying the
differences between the original and back - translated versions of the
questionnaire according to the linguistic nature of the differences e.g.
sentence structure, terminology, grammar or scales. The
significance of differences was then noted in terms of its relevance to
particular types of linguistic issues and issues related to the business
setting in China. The following is a summary of some of the types
of differences and issues arising.
The Focal Questionnaire
Results
Based on an earlier pan-European study, a structured questionnaire
was developed to study relations between manufacturers of industrial
products and their foreign customers and intermediaries. The
questionnaire will be referred to as the IMP(2) questionnaire. The
research questionnaire has been designed to do valid "etic-type"
cross-cultural comparison as well as study more "emic" dimensions
of variation.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to describe the questionnaire and
theoretical background in any detail. It is a lengthy questionnaire
covering various aspects of interfirm relations including the nature of
the interacting parties, the type of business conducted, types of
interaction taking place, as well as a section designed to measure
different aspects of the “relationship atmosphere” existing between
the firms. Atmosphere includes a number of items designed to
measure various dimensions such as power-dependence (e.g.
“Considering everything, we actually have no alternatives to this
relationship), cooperation-competition (e.g. “Lack of cooperation has
caused problems in our relationship”), closeness-distance (e.g.
“Cultural differences have caused crises in the relationship”), and
trust-opportunism (e.g. “We feel we can trust this customer
completely”). A five-point rating scale is used - strongly agree,
partly agree, uncertain, partly agree, and strongly agree.
The questionnaire has been used to gather data in various countries in
Europe, with the questionnaire being translated from the original
English version in each case to other languages. No systematic
study has been undertaken of the differences between the various
language versions of the questionnaire, although difficulties were
experienced in translating some terms and concepts.
As part of an Australian study, the IMP(2) questionnaire was
translated from English into Mandarin Chinese and back to English.
The remainder of this paper focuses on what was learned from this
process. The translation from English to Mandarin was undertaken
by two visiting academics from a Mainland Chinese University which
specializes in the international business area. One of the academics
had studied for a masters business degree in England and was fluent
in English, the other was qualified in economics, had not been abroad
before and spoke little English. The two worked together in
Linguistic Differences
Some differences indicated dissimilarities in language structure and
lack of clear understanding on the part of the translators of
comparable language/meaning. Some differences appear to be
unique to the translation of English into Chinese and provide insight
into the comparability of language structures generally (Frey, 1970)
Colloquialisms and Metaphors (idioms) are parts of speech unlikely
to have equivalent versions in a target language and caused some
difficulties for the translators e.g.
Original
mother company
bridgehead
smoothing out
upper hand
Translation
group company
starting point
eliminate
better position
In some cases the translations are close to the original and could be
accepted, e.g mother company and group company and bridgehead
(as in bridgehead for entering another country) and starting point. In
other cases, re-thinking and clarification of the original concept may
be called for or some allowance should be made when comparing
results. For example ‘upper hand’ is part of an item used to
measure relative power in the relationship - “We have the upper hand
in the relationship” - whereas ‘better position’ may not convey the
same relative power connotation. Lastly, ‘smoothing out’ is less
extreme than ‘eliminate’ and is used in a question asking about an
intermediary’s role in smoothing out misunderstandings. The
differences may be subtle but could be a source of systematic bias.
Subjective forms and modal auxiliaries i.e. verbs with would or could
were also found to be confusing as predicted in the literature as is
illustrated in the following example: “If necessary we would go
quite far in making concessions to this customer.” is translated as,
“If necessary, we will give more concessions to the client.” Here,
"will" is substituted for "would" although with little compromise in
3
meaning. Furthermore in this sentence, the colloquialism "go quite
far" is translated with subtle difference into "give more."
In line with the literature the active voice (The boy broke the
window) rather than the passive voice (the window was broken by
the boy) was more translatable. For example: “What was the sales
volume for this product to this customer last year?” was translated as
“What is the amount of this product did you sell to the client last
year?” Subject and verb are obscure leading to understandable
confusion on the part of the translator. The translator, in a major
re-work of the sentence, has needed to add a subject (you), managed
to keep to the same tense (did), and substituted "amount" for "sales
volume." However, meaning does not appear to have been seriously
damaged.
In several cases, more serious confusion resulted through use of
general or ambiguous terms. For example “newness of technology
and inputs” is translated as “advanced degree of technology and
other involvement.” The use of the term inputs simply takes up
space unless more clearly specified as is shown in the unrelated
translation involvement. The use of the word ‘advanced’ instead of
‘newness” in referring to technology is also interesting and probably
reflects the situation that newly introduced technology is advanced in
China, even if it may be old technology elsewhere.
Mastering the present perfect tense is difficult for many translators
of English. “The differences between the present perfect and the
past simple are complicated and difficult to analyse, and the rules
given in grammar books not always very clear or accurate." (Swan,
1981 p. 493) Speakers of European languages where a similar
tense exists have problems with the present perfect tense; these are
compounded for Chinese as the Chinese verb does not conjugate and
has no tenses or moods.
For example “What has been the sales trend over the past 5 years?” is
translated to “How is the sales of the products in the recent 5 years?”
The present perfect tense of the infinitive to be (has been) is
substituted with the present tense (is). The use of reference to a
period of time "recent five years" helps in this instance to maintain
sentence equivalence. Time adverbs ( i.e. now, yesterday, later) do a
lot of the work of the English tenses in the Chinese language. Use
of the present perfect tense in the translated version of the
questionnaire however would have made it more clear that the
pattern of all sales need to be considered.
The following example shows difficulties with "number". “How
regular was the sales pattern, i.e. have sales been made at regular
intervals?” is translated as “Is the sale conducted regularly, that is, if
the sale has been conducted within the time schedule.” This type of
problem is not unexpected because while English expresses "number"
by changing the noun and/or verb (goose is - geese are), in Chinese
there are no vowel or suffix changes to indicate number, nor do
verbs or adjectives vary with number (Newnham, 1980 p. 82). The
translation in this case could be a concern as it might indicate
reference to one lengthy and involved sale as opposed to a number
of sales over a time period.
The concept of sales "pattern" which appears in the original has been
left out of this and other questions. The translator has interpreted
this to mean whether a sale has been completed on time. This also
indicates a problem in understanding the theoretical premise of the
question. Response scales which range from very regular to very
irregular merely compound the problem.
Setting
Western marketing systems are just beginning to take hold in China.
Hence it is important to avoid making assumptions about a shared
business culture as far as linguistics/terminology is concerned.
Some problems of this nature arise with the IMP2 questionnaire.
One minor example is the consistent use of the word client as
opposed to customer. Another involves the word business units,
which is changed to "branches and departments." Chinese
organizations can be highly structured and bureaucratic and it could
be important to clarify the meaning of the term for the Chinese
version. The translation of the term third party also caused a
problem as it is translated as respondents own company. **Is there a
word for "third party" in Chinese?
Another example concerns the categories used to classify product
into five types i.e. raw materials, semi-finished, component, minor
equipment and heavy equipment. The back translation is raw
material, half product, spare parts, small equipment and big
equipment. The differences suggest there were problems in
interpreting some types, particularly semi-finished and component.
There are considerable differences in the law and legal system in
China and the West that help to explain some interpretations. The
translation uses the more public sector related words legal agent and
agency rather than law firm . This may be because prior to
modernization, most lawyers were employed by and responsible to
the State. Differences in Western and Chinese law and contracts are
reflected in the translation of marketing agreements into sales
management agreements and licensor agreements into certificate
receiver agreements.
Lastly, an interesting difference arose in the translations of the central
concept of customer commitment, which was translated in terms of
obligation. This appears to reflect a subtle but important difference
in the nature of business and social relations in the Chinese context
and the relevance of obligational bonding between Chinese
organizations as described by Redding (1990). This may require the
introduction of an additional theoretical construct into the
relationship atmosphere part of the questionnaire. Apart from the
concept of commitment other dimensions of relationship atmosphere
did not result in notable differences. This encourages us to believe
the dimensions translate into Chinese meaningfully.
Summary and Conclusions
The case study of the back translation of the IMP2 questionnaire
from English into Chinese has illustrated some of the many
difficulties and problems confronting cross-cultural researchers.
Differences have been described and related to more general factors
and issues noted in the literature.
On the whole the translation appears well done. Equivalence was
problematic as a result of the use of less than simple English, abstract
terminology and differences in language structure or syntax.
The paper has served to sensitize us to the kinds of issues and
problems translators have to deal with as they try to convert language
and meaning from one culture to another. In the case study example
4
many of the differences between the English and back-translated
Chinese versions of the questionnaire involve no substantial
difference in meaning (including many minor variations not referred
to here). Other differences indicate where questionnaire
modification may be needed or a concept may need to be clarified to
ensure the required meaning is maintained. This may involve more
than correcting the Chinese translation and require modifying both
versions to allow better comparability.
The differences between the English and back-translated versions
also serve to alert us to implicit assumptions that may be made in the
questionnaire about the nature of western business and cultural
systems. Lastly, insight may be gained through the differences into
additional theoretical constructs appropriate to the Chinese culture.
The substitution of ‘obligation’ for ‘commitment’ is an example of
this, reflecting the relevance of another aspect of Chinese business
relations - obligational bondings - which had been omitted from the
original questionnaire..
Frey, Frederick W., (1970) "Cross-Cultural Survey Research in
Political Science", in The Methodology of Comparative Research,
R.. Holt and J. Turner eds., New York:The Free Press 173-294
Håkansson, H. (1982) International Marketing and Purchasing of
Industrial Goods: An Interaction Approach. Chichester: Wiley.
Holt, Robert T. & Turner, John E.eds. (1970), The Methodology of
Comparative Research, The Free Press, New York.
Hymes, Dell, (1970) "Linguistic Aspects of Comparative Political
Research", in The Methodology of Comparative Research, R.. Holt
and J. Turner eds, New York:The Free Press, 295-341.
Mintu, Alma T, Calantone, Roger J. and Jule B. Gassenheimer (1994)
“Towards Improving Cross-Cultural Research: Extending
Churchill's Research Paradigm”, Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, Vol 7 (2) 5-23.
At the least, the back translation suggests additional explanatory
factors to be considered in comparing the results of studies using the
English and Chinese language versions of the questionnaire. These
factors may also be valuable in interpreting results from the
cross-national European and Asia-Pacific business network studies.
Osgood, Charles, E. (1975), Cross-Cultural Universals of Affective
Meaning, University of Illinois Press, Chicago.
Of course questionnaire equivalence and measurement is only one
aspect of cross-cultural research design. Scaling issues (e.g. Voss
and Stem 1997), sampling, implementation of interviews, the
response characteristics of different cultural groups as well as data
analysis issue may also compromise the comparability of the results
even if the questionnaires are equivalent (Cavusgil and Das 1997)..
Indeed, implementing a complex structured questionnaire such as
IMP2 is particularly challenging. But these issues are beyond the
scope of this paper.
Sanders, David, (1994) “Methodological Considerations in
Comparative Cross-National Research,”, International Social Science
Journal, 46 (December), 513-521.
Redding, S. G. (1990) The Spirit of Chinese Capitalism, Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Sperber, Ami D., DeVellis, Robert F. and Brian Boehlecke (1994)
“Cross Cultural Translation - Methodology and Validation,”
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25 (December), 501 - 524.
Swan, Michael, (1981) Practical English Usage, Oxford, New York.
Triandis, Harry C., (1972) The Analysis of Subjective Culture, New
York: John Wiley 1972.
References
Voss, Kevin E. and Donald E. Stem Jr. (1997), “How do Market
Research Scales Compare Across Languages?” Australian Journal
of Market Research, 5 (1), 39-46.
Brislin, Richard W., Lonner, Walter J. and Robert M. Thorndike
(1973), Cross-Cultural Research Methods. New York: John Wiley.
Brown, Keith (1984) Linguistics Today, London, Fontana.
Cavusgil, S. Tamer and Ajay Das (1997), “Methodological Issues in
Empirical Cross-Cultural Research: A Survey of the Management
Literature and a Framework,” Management International Review,
37 (1) 71-96.
Corder, S. P. (1973), Introducing Applied Linguistics,
London:Penguin.
Douglas, Susan P. (1983), International Marketing Research,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Ford, David. ed. (1997), Understanding Business Markets:
Interaction, Relationships Networks. Second edition, London:
Academic Press.
5