1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Babel
  4. Volume 66, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 66, Issue 4-5
  • ISSN 0521-9744
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9668
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The rapid development of neural machine translation systems and the emergence of the e-book have broadened the scope of text types that can be translated by machines. At the early stage of the machine’s infiltration into the translation field, target texts were mainly technical texts such as patents, instruction manuals, etc. Literary texts have been considered as the last bastion of human translation because the machine translation (MT) has produced word-for-word translation, unsuitable for literary texts with distinct stylistic elements. However, it turns out that the field of literary translation was not immune to the rise of MT. Style is one of the critical elements in literary texts, but it has been dismissed in the existing MT post-editing guidelines. Therefore, this research attempts to provide methodological ideas about how to come up with a machine translation post-editing guideline (MTPE) for style improvement especially for language pairs with divergent syntax and semantics like English and Korean. First, the linguistic and cultural differences in writing styles are sorted out based on previous research. Second, the different ways in which human translators address writing style are investigated. Third, the strategies that human translators employ in their translations are applied to machine translation post-editing to demonstrate how the strategies can be incorporated into English-Korean MTPE to improve style. This preliminary research would lay the groundwork for refining post-editing style guidelines and for accumulating manually post-edited data for style improvement, which would be conducive to building and customizing automatic post-editing systems.

© Fédération Internationale des Traducteurs (FIT) Revue Babel
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00174.mah
2020-07-21
2024-10-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/babel.00174.mah
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. D’Andrade, Roy
    1995 The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. New York (NY): CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139166645
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166645 [Google Scholar]
  2. Densmer, Lee
    2014 “Light and Full MT Post-editing Explained”. https://www.rws.com/insights/rws-moravia-blog/bid-353532-Light-and-Full-MT-Post-Editing-Explained/
  3. Essbaum, Jill Alexander
    2015 Hausfrau. New York: Random House Publishing Group.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Fallon, Claire
    2015 “This Shocking Book Cover Sums Up The Sneaky Sexism Of Literary Publishing”. www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/this-shocking-book-cover-sums-up-the-sneaky-sexism-of-literary-publishing_55ad4b36e4b0d2ded39faad6
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Flanagan, Marian ; and Tina Paulsen Christensen
    2014 “Testing Post-editing Guidelines: How Translation Trainees Interpret Them and How to Tailor Them for Translator Training Purposes”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer8 (2): 257–275. 10.1080/1750399X.2014.936111
     https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.936111 [Google Scholar]
  6. Hall, Edward T.
    1976 Beyond Culture. Garden City (NY): Anchor Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Han, Kang
    2007 The Vegetarian. Transl. by Debora Smith . London: Portobello Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Hara, Kazuya ; and Min-Sun Kim
    2004 “The Effect of Self-Construals on Conversational Indirectness”. International Journal of Intercultural Relations28 (1): 1–18. 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2003.12.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2003.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  9. Hu, Ke ; and Patrick Cadwell
    2016 “A Comparative Study of Post-editing Guidelines”. Baltic J. Modern Computing4 (2): 346–353.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Jones, Ruth ; and Ann Irvine
    2013 “The (Un)faithful Machine Translator”. InProceedings of the 7th Workshop on Language Technology for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, and Humanities, 96–101. Association for Computational Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Kim, Do-Hun
    2014 “Comparison between Korean-English Onomatopoeia and Translation of Korean Onomatopoeia into English”. The Journal of Translation Studies15 (1): 25–50. 10.15749/jts.2014.15.1.002
     https://doi.org/10.15749/jts.2014.15.1.002 [Google Scholar]
  12. Kim, Heejung S. ; and David K. Sheman
    2007 “Express Yourself: Culture and the Effect of Self-Expression on Choice”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology92: 1–11. 10.1037/0022‑3514.92.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  13. Koglin, Arlene
    2015 “An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Effort Required to Post-edit Machine Translated Metaphors Compared to the Translation of Metaphors”. Translation & Interpreting7 (1): 126–143.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Lee, Chang-Soo
    2007 “An Analysis of the Functional Effectiveness of Translated English Tourist Information Texts”. Conference Interpretation and Translation9 (2): 155–180.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Mah, Seung-Hye
    2016 “A Case Study of a Communicative Literary Translation and its Pedagogical Implications”. Interpretation and Translation18 (1): 47–74. 10.20305/it201601047074
     https://doi.org/10.20305/it201601047074 [Google Scholar]
  16. Mesa-Lao, Bartolomé
    2013 “Introduction to Post-editing-The CasMaCat GUI”. bridge.cbs.dk/projects/seecat/material/hand-out_post-editing_bmesa-lao.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Noh, Jinseo
    2008 “Onomatopoeia in Korean-English Translation of Poetic Phrases and Translation Strategies”. Conference Interpretation and Translation10 (1): 45–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. O’Brien, Sharon
    2010 “Introduction to Post-Editing: Who, What, How and Where to Next?” https://amta2010.amtaweb.org/AMTA/papers/6-01-ObrienPostEdit.pdf
  19. Pérez, Celia Rico
    2012 “A Flexible Decision Tool for Implementing Post-editing guidelines”. Localisation Focus11 (1): 54–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Sachar, Louis
    1998 Holes. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Shin, Jungho
    2012 A Comparative Study of Symbolic words in Japanese and Korean. MA thesis. Oslo: University of Oslo.
  22. Shin, Kyung-Sook
    2008 엄마를 부탁해. Gyeonggi: Changbi Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Schourup, Lawrence
    1993 “Contrastive Study of Japanese and English Onomatopoeia”. Gengo22 (6): 48–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. TAUS
    TAUS 2016 “TAUS Post-editing Guidelines”. https://www.taus.net/think-tank/articles/postedit-articles/taus-post-editing-guidelines
  25. Toral, Antonio ; and Victor M. Sánchez-Cartagena
    2017 “A Multifaceted Evaluation of Neural versus Phrase-based Machine Translation for 9 Language Directions”. InProceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Vol. 1, 1063–1073. Valencia: Long Papers.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Toral, Antonio ; and Andy Way
    2015a “Machine-assisted Translation of Literary Text: A Case Study”. Translation Spaces4 (2): 240–267. 10.1075/ts.4.2.04tor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.4.2.04tor [Google Scholar]
  27. 2015b “Translating Literary Text between Related Languages using SMT”. InProceedings of NAACL-HLT Fourth Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Literature, 123–132. Denver (CO). 10.3115/v1/W15‑0714
     https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W15-0714 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2018 “What Level of Quality Can Neural Machine Translation Attain on Literary Text?” InTranslation Quality Assessment: From Principles to Practice, ed. by Joss Moorkens ; Sheila Castilho ; Federico Gaspari ; and Stephen Doherty , 263–287. Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑91241‑7_12
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91241-7_12 [Google Scholar]
  29. Yoon, Miseon ; Kim, Take-Min ; Lim, Jinju ; and Seung-Yeun Hong
    2018 “Post-editing Guidelines for English-Korean Language Pairs: Guidelines and Examples for Future Post-editors”. The Journal of Translation Studies19 (5): 43–76. 10.15749/jts.2018.19.5.002
     https://doi.org/10.15749/jts.2018.19.5.002 [Google Scholar]
  30. Vaid, Jyotsna ; Choi, Hyun ; Chen, Hsin-Chin ; and Michael Friedman
    2008 “Perceiving and Responding to Embarrassing Predicaments across Languages”. The Mental Lexicon3 (1): 121–147. 10.1075/ml.3.1.08vai
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.3.1.08vai [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00174.mah
Loading
Defining language dependent post-editing guidelines for specific content
Babel 66, 811 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00174.mah
/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00174.mah
/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00174.mah
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): differences between English and Korean; différences entre l’anglais et le coréen; directives stylistiques de PETA littéraire; literature MT; machine translation (MT); machine translation post-editing (MTPE); post-édition de traduction automatique (PETA); style guideline in literature MTPE; TA littéraire; traduction automatique (TA)

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error