13 Translation Errors and How to Evaluate Them
Originally published June 30, 2016, by Carolyn Knees. Updated with guidance on evaluating translation quality and reviewer feedback by Vic Marcus.
Estimated Read Time: 8-10 minutes
Summary
Translation errors can affect meaning, completeness, terminology, language, and layout. Evaluate each concern against the original content, intended audience, and agreed requirements. Native-speaking reviewers can provide valuable feedback, but a suggested edit is not automatically proof of an error. Ask for specific examples, separate corrections from preferences, and have unresolved language questions evaluated by a qualified translator.
You receive a translation, send it to a colleague who speaks the language, and get it back covered in changes. Does that mean the translation is wrong?
Sometimes it does. Sometimes the reviewer prefers a different way of saying the same thing. And sometimes the translation and reviewer are working from different expectations.
The useful question is: What is wrong, and what supports that conclusion? A change in meaning, a missing instruction, or a missed requirement needs attention. An equally accurate alternative may be a preference. Knowing the difference helps you resolve feedback without overlooking real problems or rewriting acceptable work.
Translation Errors vs. Reviewer Preferences
An objective error has an identifiable basis: the translation changes the meaning, leaves something out, breaks an applicable language rule, or fails an agreed requirement.
A subjective preference is a choice between acceptable alternatives. Someone may prefer “car” to “automobile,” for example. That does not make the other word incorrect in every context.
The project brief matters. If an approved style guide requires plain, everyday wording, “automobile” might be unsuitable even though it is a valid word. Likewise, a regional expression can be appropriate for one audience and inappropriate for another.
The Multidimensional Quality Metrics framework separates issues such as accuracy, terminology, style, and audience appropriateness. For a buyer, the practical lesson is to identify the problem and the requirement behind it before deciding how to respond.
Evaluate comments against meaning, language rules, and agreed requirements before treating them as corrections.
13 Translation Errors to Check
The following examples explain what can go wrong, how to assess each issue, and when a suggested change may reflect a preference rather than an error.
1. Omissions and Untranslated Text
A missing sentence, heading, warning, or footnote can leave readers without information they need. Text can also remain in the original language when it should have been translated.
Compare the complete source and translated files, including text inside graphics and tables. Confirm any approved exceptions: a product name intentionally left unchanged is different from an overlooked instruction.
How to evaluate it: Usually objective. Identify the missing or untranslated content and check whether its exclusion was authorized.
2. Text Not Adapted to the Intended Market
“French” alone may not describe your audience well enough. Tell your provider whether readers are in Canada, France, or another market. Regional terminology and conventions affect how natural and appropriate the translation feels.
Consider this illustrative example:
| English | Canadian French | French for France |
|---|---|---|
| Our offices are closed on weekends. | Nos bureaux sont fermés la fin de semaine. | Nos bureaux sont fermés le week-end. |
The distinction is the wording for “weekend.” The Office québécois de la langue française identifies “fin de semaine” as the preferred term in Québec/Canada, while “week-end” is widely used in France. Both forms occur in Québec, so this is a difference in regional usage—not proof that one expression is universally wrong.
For a project intended for Québec readers, “fin de semaine” would generally be the better fit. For readers in France, “week-end” would usually be more natural. This is why identifying the intended market before translation matters.
How to evaluate it: Check the agreed market, register, and terminology requirements. Wording that conflicts with those requirements may need correction. A reviewer’s preference for their own regional usage does not automatically make wording intended for another audience incorrect.
3. Mistranslations and Unsupported Additions
A mistranslation changes the source meaning. It might reverse an instruction, confuse a technical term, or alter who is responsible for an action. Added information can also be an accuracy error when the original does not support it.
For an illustrative example, changing “submit within 30 days” to “submit after 30 days” changes the instruction. Check numbers, dates, amounts, units, and negative words such as “not” carefully.
How to evaluate it: Objective when meaning changes without authorization. Ask a qualified bilingual reviewer to compare the passage with the source. Fluent wording alone does not establish accuracy, whether the draft was produced by a person or a tool.
4. Approved Reference Materials Not Followed
Previous translations, product documentation, and reference files help establish context. However, not every old document is an approved model for current work.
Identify which references are mandatory, which are background, and which version takes priority. If two approved sources conflict, the provider should raise the question rather than silently choose one.
How to evaluate it: Compare the actual wording with the applicable reference. A disagreement does not, by itself, prove the translator never reviewed the materials. Distinguish an overlooked requirement from an outdated reference or a preference supplied after delivery.
5. The Style Guide Not Followed
A style guide can define tone, audience, preferred wording, measurement conventions, and treatment of names. These decisions help reviewers and translators work toward the same result.
If your guide requires direct instructions for the public, highly technical wording may miss the intended reading level. But an English readability score is not automatically an appropriate measure for another language.
How to evaluate it: A documented requirement can make a style issue objective. If no preference was agreed, discuss whether the wording is unsuitable for readers or simply different from the reviewer’s choice.
6. Spelling, Grammar, and Syntax Errors
Misspellings, incorrect agreement, and broken sentence structure can undermine clarity. Some mistakes are obvious; others require knowledge of the language variety and context.
Be careful about judging another language by English rules. A translated sentence does not need to follow the same word order as its source.
How to evaluate it: Identify the applicable rule and consider accepted regional forms. A qualified reviewer should be able to explain the problem, rather than only saying the sentence “sounds wrong.”
7. Glossary and Terminology Inconsistencies
Readers should not have to guess whether three different terms refer to the same program, product, or process. An approved glossary gives the project a shared vocabulary.
Consistency still requires judgment. The same source word can have different meanings in different contexts, so mechanically using one translation everywhere can introduce errors.
How to evaluate it: Check the concept, context, and approved term. A wrong technical term or an unjustified departure from the glossary is an error. An equally suitable synonym may be a preference when no term has been established.
8. Table of Contents, Index, and Footnote Errors
Translation can change page lengths and move sections. A reference that correctly points to page 12 in English may lead to the wrong place in the translated file.
The W3C’s guidance on text size in translation explains why translated content needs flexible layouts. There is no single expansion percentage that reliably predicts every document.
How to evaluate it: Test page references, footnote markers, bookmarks, and internal links in the final version. A reference that directs readers to the wrong information is an objective problem.
9. Incorrect Hyphenation and Line Breaks
Line breaks and hyphenation follow language-specific conventions. Applying English settings to every language can create awkward or incorrect breaks.
Chinese has restrictions on where particular punctuation marks may appear. The rule is more specific than “a line may never begin with punctuation.” W3C’s overview of line-breaking conventions explains how these requirements differ across writing systems.
The highlighted punctuation shows why Chinese line breaks need language-specific review.
How to evaluate it: Ask a linguist to check the formatted file using the relevant language conventions. Some breaks are prohibited; others are acceptable layout choices.
10. Incorrect Capitalization
Capitalization rules differ across languages. Do not automatically carry English title capitalization into a translation.
German capitalizes nouns, and changing capitalization can change how a word is read. The original example illustrates the distinction:
| German | English |
|---|---|
| essen | to eat |
| Essen | food |
How to evaluate it: Check the language rule and the word’s role in the sentence. Where a rule allows alternatives, the project’s style guide may determine the choice.
11. Incorrect Spacing and Typographical Errors
An extra space, a missing character, or the wrong punctuation mark can survive translation and appear during editing or formatting. Automated checks can help, but their coverage varies by language and software.
A spellchecker may also accept a correctly spelled word that is wrong for the sentence.
How to evaluate it: Check the final file against the language’s conventions. Do not assume punctuation spacing should look the same as English. Review suspicious numbers and symbols against the source as well.
12. Incorrect Spelling of Names
Names need particular care when languages use different writing systems. Several transliterations may be possible, but an organization or individual may already use an established spelling.
Provide approved spellings early. When a document must match an existing record, identify that record and the required form before translation begins.
How to evaluate it: Compare the name with the agreed reference. A mismatch may be an objective error; choosing among acceptable transliterations without a specified reference may require clarification.
13. Missing Post-Layout Review
Desktop publishing, or DTP, prepares translated content for its finished layout. Skipping the final linguistic check is a process gap that can allow errors to remain.
Translation tools often divide content into segments. Translation memory stores source passages alongside previous translations for appropriate reuse. Modern tools may offer previews, but the exported document still needs attention.
The same content appears as segments in a translation tool and in the exported Word document.
These are two views of the original example. Checking the finished file helps identify misplaced text, broken formatting, and wording that does not work in context. Our overview of multilingual desktop publishing explains the production work involved.
How to evaluate it: Confirm that final-layout review was included and completed. Assess any resulting errors individually. Skipping a review does not, by itself, prove every translation is wrong.
How to Evaluate Reviewer Feedback
A native-speaking colleague can offer valuable insight into audience expectations, internal terminology, and clarity. Professional translation review also requires comparison with the source, relevant subject knowledge, and an understanding of the assignment.
Give reviewers the original content, project brief, approved glossary, and style guide. Ask them to record:
- The page or location and exact wording in question.
- The proposed correction.
- Why the change is needed, with a source passage or requirement where applicable.
- Whether the issue changes meaning, affects usability, or reflects a preference.
Specific feedback gives the reviewer and provider a shared basis for resolving a concern.
Consolidate comments into one version and ask the provider to explain any disputed decisions. If the original itself is ambiguous, resolve that before approving the translation.
Consider consequences as well as counts. One incorrect deadline can matter more than several minor punctuation errors. Numerous stylistic edits do not automatically establish poor translation quality.
Agree which changes are corrections, preferences, or new requirements. Confirm revision arrangements before requesting work outside the original scope. Our translation pricing guide explains why the included review process matters when comparing quotes.
Make the Review Useful
You do not need to speak every target language to coordinate a useful review. You need clear requirements, specific feedback, and a process for resolving questions.
Correct genuine errors, consider preferences on their merits, and record approved decisions for future projects. The goal is content that accurately communicates the original and works for the people who will read it.
To learn how translation, editing, proofreading, and production can fit together, explore NWI Global’s translation and localization services.