1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Is human translation more conservative than machine translation?
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present study investigates whether conservatism exists in human- and machine-translated texts from Chinese into English, and whether this tendency is consistently observable across different registers and multiple lexico-grammatical features by applying profile-based correspondence analysis and mixed-effects logistic regression modelling. The results reveal that human translation is characterised by a higher level of conservatism than both machine translation and original writing, irrespective of registers and lexico-grammatical features. In contrast, machine translation tends to be more conservative compared to non-translations only in journalistic and fictional texts, and the degree of conservatism varies across machine translation platforms. These findings suggest that human translators are more risk avoidant than original writers are, providing strong support for the risk aversion hypothesis. Moreover, the lack of understanding of translation norms or standards in machine translation, as well as the linguistic distinctions from human translation, implies the immense potential of future human-machine collaborative translation models.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.24048.li
2025-11-14
2025-12-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.24048.li
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aharoni, R., Koppel, M., & Goldberg, Y.
    (2014) Automatic detection of machine translated text and translation quality estimation. InK. Toutanova & H. Wu (Eds.) Proceedings of the 52nd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.–). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.3115/v1/P14‑2048
     https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/P14-2048 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, M.
    (1993) Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. InM. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.64.15bak
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.15bak [Google Scholar]
  3. (1996) Corpus-based translation studies: The challenges that lie ahead. InH. Somers (Ed.), Terminology, LSP and translation: Studies in language engineering in honour of Juan C. Sager (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.18.17bak
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.18.17bak [Google Scholar]
  4. Becher, V.
    (2010) Abandoning the notion of “translation-inherent” explicitation: Against a dogma of translation studies. Across Languages and Cultures, (), –. 10.1556/Acr.11.2010.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.11.2010.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bennett, K.
    (2009) English academic style manuals: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, (), –. 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.12.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bernardini, S., & Ferraresi, A.
    (2011) Practice, description and theory come together — normalization or interference in Italian technical translation?Meta, (), –. 10.7202/1006174ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/1006174ar [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D.
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bizzoni, Y., Juzek, T. S., España-Bonet, C., Dutta Chowdhury, K., van Genabith, J., & Teich, E.
    (2020) How human is machine translationese? Comparing human and machine translations of text and speech. InM. Federico, A. Waibel, K. Knight, S. Nakamura, H. Ney, J. Niehues, S. Stüker, D. Wu, J. Mariani, & F. Yvon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th international conference on spoken language translation (pp.–). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/2020.iwslt‑1.34
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.iwslt-1.34 [Google Scholar]
  9. Blum-Kulka, S.
    (1986) Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. InJ. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies (pp.–). Gunter Narr Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bresnan, J.
    (2021) Formal grammar, usage probabilities, and auxiliary contraction. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.2021.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2021.0003 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brezina, B., & Platt, W.
    (2024) #LancsBox X [Computer software]. Lancaster University. lancsbox.lancs.ac.uk
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bystrova-McIntyre, T.
    (2012) Cohesion in translation: A corpus study of human-translated, machine-translated, and non-translated texts (Russian into English). Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University.
  13. Cappelle, B., & Loock, R.
    (2017) Typological differences shining through: The case of phrasal verbs in translated English. InG. De Sutter, M.-A. Lefer, & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies. New theoretical and methodological traditions (pp.–). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110459586‑009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110459586-009 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chesterman, A.
    (1997) Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.22
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.22 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chou, I., Li, W., & Liu, K.
    (2023) Representation of interactional metadiscourse in translated and native English: A corpus-assisted study. PLOS ONE, (), e0284849. 10.1371/journal.pone.0284849
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284849 [Google Scholar]
  16. Curzan, A.
    (2014) Fixing English: Prescriptivism and language history. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139107327
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139107327 [Google Scholar]
  17. Daugs, R.
    (2021) Investigating the constructionhood of English modal contractions from a diachronic perspective: Contractions, constructions and constructional change. InM. Hilpert, B. Cappelle, & I. Depraetere (Eds.), Modality and diachronic construction grammar (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.32.02dau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.32.02dau [Google Scholar]
  18. De Clercq, O., De Sutter, G., Loock, R., Cappelle, B., & Plevoets, K.
    (2021) Uncovering machine translationese using corpus analysis techniques to distinguish between original and machine-translated French. Translation Quarterly, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. De Sutter, G., Delaere, I., & Plevoets, K.
    (2012) Lexical lectometry in corpus-based translation studies. InMichael P. Oakes & M. Ji (Eds.), Quantitative methods in corpus-based translation studies (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.51.13sut
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.51.13sut [Google Scholar]
  20. De Sutter, G., & Lefer, M.-A.
    (2020) On the need for a new research agenda for corpus-based translation studies: A multi-methodological, multifactorial and interdisciplinary approach. Perspectives, (), –. 10.1080/0907676X.2019.1611891
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1611891 [Google Scholar]
  21. Delaere, I., & De Sutter, G.
    (2013) Applying a multidimensional, register-sensitive approach to visualize normalization in translated and non-translated Dutch. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/bjl.27.03del
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.27.03del [Google Scholar]
  22. (2017) Variability of English loanword use in Belgian Dutch translations. Measuring the effect of source language and register. InG. D. Sutter, M.-A. Lefer, & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies: New methodological and theoretical traditions (pp.–). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110459586‑004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110459586-004 [Google Scholar]
  23. Delaere, I., De Sutter, G., & Plevoets, K.
    (2012) Is translated language more standardized than non-translated language?: Using profile-based correspondence analysis for measuring linguistic distances between language varieties. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, (), –. 10.1075/target.24.2.01del
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.24.2.01del [Google Scholar]
  24. Dixon, T.
    (2022) Proscribed informality features in published research: A corpus analysis. English for Specific Purposes, , –. 10.1016/j.esp.2021.09.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dixon, T., Egbert, J., Larsson, T., Kaatari, H., & Hanks, E.
    (2023) Toward an empirical understanding of formality: Triangulating corpus data with teacher perceptions. English for Specific Purposes, , –. 10.1016/j.esp.2023.04.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  26. Doherty, S.
    (2016) The impact of translation technologies on the process and product of translation. International Journal of Communication, , –. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3499/1573
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Evert, S., & Neumann, S.
    (2017) The impact of translation direction on characteristics of translated texts. A multivariate analysis for English and German. InG. De Sutter, M.-A. Lefer, & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies: New methodological and theoretical traditions (pp.–). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110459586‑003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110459586-003 [Google Scholar]
  28. Geeraerts, D., Speelman, D., Heylen, K., Montes, M., De Pascale, S., Franco, K., & Lang, M.
    (2023) Lectometry step by step. InD. Geeraerts, D. Speelman, K. Heylen, M. Montes, S. De Pascale, K. Franco, & M. Lang (Eds.), Lexical variation and change (pp.–). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198890676.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198890676.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  29. Graham, Y., Haddow, B., & Koehn, P.
    (2020) Statistical power and translationese in machine translation evaluation. InB. Webber, T. Cohn, Y. He, & Y. Liu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2020 conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (pp.–). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp‑main.6
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.6 [Google Scholar]
  30. Greenacre, M.
    (2016) Correspondence analysis in practice (3rd ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC. 10.1201/9781315369983
     https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315369983 [Google Scholar]
  31. Grellier, J., & Goerke, V.
    (2018) Communications toolkit. Cengage AU.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Gries, S. Th.
    (2015) The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora, (), –. 10.3366/cor.2015.0068
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2015.0068 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hu, X., Xiao, R., & Hardie, A.
    (2019) How do English translations differ from non-translated English writings? A multi-feature statistical model for linguistic variation analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, (), –. 10.1515/cllt‑2014‑0047
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0047 [Google Scholar]
  34. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F.
    (2017) Is academic writing becoming more informal?English for Specific Purposes, , –. 10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Jiang, Y., & Niu, J.
    (2022) A corpus-based search for machine translationese in terms of discourse coherence. Across Languages and Cultures, (), –. 10.1556/084.2022.00182
     https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2022.00182 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kenny, D.
    (2001) Lexis and creativity in translation: A corpus based approach. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315759968
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315759968 [Google Scholar]
  38. Konovalova, A., & Toral, A.
    (2022) Man vs. machine: Extracting character networks from human and machine translations. InS. Degaetano, A. Kazantseva, N. Reiter, & S. Szpakowicz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th joint SIGHUM workshop on computational linguistics for cultural heritage, social sciences, humanities and literature (pp.–). International Conference on Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/2022.latechclfl-1.10
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Koponen, M.
    (2016) Is machine translation post-editing worth the effort?: A survey of research into post-editing and effort. The Journal of Specialised Translation, , –. https://jostrans.soap2.ch/issue25/art_koponen.pdf. 10.26034/cm.jostrans.2016.303
     https://doi.org/10.26034/cm.jostrans.2016.303 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kruger, H.
    (2019) That again: A multivariate analysis of the factors conditioning syntactic explicitness in translated English. Across Languages and Cultures, (), –. 10.1556/084.001
     https://doi.org/10.1556/084.001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kruger, H., & De Sutter, G.
    (2018) Alternations in contact and non-contact varieties: Reconceptualising that-omission in translated and non-translated English using the MuPDAR approach. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, (), –. 10.1075/tcb.00011.kru
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00011.kru [Google Scholar]
  42. Krüger, R.
    (2020) Explicitation in neural machine translation. Across Languages and Cultures, (), –. 10.1556/084.2020.00012
     https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2020.00012 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kuo, C.
    (2019) Function words in statistical machine-translated Chinese and original Chinese: A study into the translationese of machine translation systems. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, (), –. 10.1093/llc/fqy050
     https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqy050 [Google Scholar]
  44. Lapshinova-Koltunski, E.
    (2015) Variation in translation: Evidence from corpora. InC. Fantinuoli & F. Zanettin (Eds.), New directions in corpus-based translation studies (pp.–). Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. (2017) Exploratory analysis of dimensions influencing variation in translation. The case of text register and translation method. InG. De Sutter, M.-A. Lefer, & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies: New methodological and theoretical traditions (pp.–). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110459586‑008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110459586-008 [Google Scholar]
  46. (2022) Detecting normalisation and shining-through in novice and professional translations. InS. Granger & Marie-Aude Lefer (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based translation studies (pp.–). Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350143289.0015
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350143289.0015 [Google Scholar]
  47. Larsonneur, C.
    (2021) Neural machine translation: From commodity to commons?InR. Desjardins, C. Larsonneur, & P. Lacour (Eds.), When translation goes digital: Case studies and critical reflections (pp.–). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑51761‑8_11
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51761-8_11 [Google Scholar]
  48. Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C., & Smith, N.
    (2009) Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511642210
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511642210 [Google Scholar]
  49. Leppihalme, R.
    (2000) The two faces of standardization: On the translation of regionalisms in literary dialogue. The Translator, (), –. 10.1080/13556509.2000.10799068
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2000.10799068 [Google Scholar]
  50. Li, H., Graesser, A. C., & Cai, Z.
    (2014) Comparison of Google translation with human translation. InW. Eberle & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-seventh international Florida artificial intelligence research society conference (pp.–). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. https://aaai.org/papers/flairs-2014-7864/
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Liardét, C. L., Black, S., & Bardetta, V. S.
    (2019) Defining formality: Adapting to the abstract demands of academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, , –. 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.02.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.02.007 [Google Scholar]
  52. Liu, K., & Afzaal, M.
    (2021) Syntactic complexity in translated and non-translated texts: A corpus-based study of simplification. PLOS ONE, (), e0253454. 10.1371/journal.pone.0253454
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253454 [Google Scholar]
  53. Luo, J., & Li, D.
    (2022) Universals in machine translation?: A corpus-based study of Chinese-English translations by WeChat Translate. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/ijcl.19127.luo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19127.luo [Google Scholar]
  54. Mair, C.
    (2015) Parallel corpora. A real-time approach to the study of language change in progress. Diacronia, (), Article 1. 10.17684/i1A6en
     https://doi.org/10.17684/i1A6en [Google Scholar]
  55. Mair, C., & Hundt, M.
    (1995) Why is the progressive becoming more frequent in English? A corpus-based investigation of language change in progress. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Malmkjær, K.
    (1997) Punctuation in Hans Christian Andersen’s stories and in their translations into English. InF. Poyatos (Ed.), Nonverbal communication and translation (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.17.13mal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.17.13mal [Google Scholar]
  57. Mauranen, A.
    (2007) Universal tendencies in translation. InG. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.), Incorporating corpora: The linguist and the translator (pp.–). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853599873‑006
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599873-006 [Google Scholar]
  58. May, R.
    (1997) Sensible elocution: How translation works in & upon punctuation. The Translator, (), –. 10.1080/13556509.1997.10798985
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1997.10798985 [Google Scholar]
  59. Mouratidis, D., Stasimioti, M., Sosoni, V., & Kermanidis, K. L.
    (2021) NoDeeLe: A novel deep learning schema for evaluating neural machine translation systems. InR. Mitkov, V. Sosoni, J. C. Giguère, E. Murgolo, & E. Deysel (Eds.), Proceedings of the translation and interpreting technology online conference (pp.–). INCOMA Ltd. https://aclanthology.org/2021.triton-1.5. 10.26615/978‑954‑452‑071‑7_005
     https://doi.org/10.26615/978-954-452-071-7_005 [Google Scholar]
  60. Niu, J., & Jiang, Y.
    (2024) Does simplification hold true for machine translations? A corpus-based analysis of lexical diversity in text varieties across genres. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, (), –. 10.1057/s41599‑024‑02986‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02986-7 [Google Scholar]
  61. O’Brien, S.
    (2020) Translation, human–computer interaction and cognition. InF. Alves & A. Jakobsen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and cognition (pp.–). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315178127‑25
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315178127-25 [Google Scholar]
  62. Olohan, M.
    (2003) How frequent are the contractions?: A study of contracted forms in the Translational English corpus. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, (), –. 10.1075/target.15.1.04olo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.15.1.04olo [Google Scholar]
  63. Olohan, M., & Baker, M.
    (2000) Reporting that in translated English. Evidence for subconscious processes of explicitation?Across Languages and Cultures, (), –. 10.1556/Acr.1.2000.2.1
     https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.1.2000.2.1 [Google Scholar]
  64. Øverås, L.
    (1998) In search of the Third Code: An investigation of norms in literary translation. Meta, (), –. 10.7202/003775ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/003775ar [Google Scholar]
  65. Pedersen, J.
    (2017) How metaphors are rendered in subtitles. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, (), –. 10.1075/target.16038.ped
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.16038.ped [Google Scholar]
  66. Plevoets, K.
    (2008) Tussen spreek-en standaardtaal: Een corpusgebaseerd onderzoek naar de situationele, regionale en sociale verspreiding van enkele morfo-syntactische verschijnselen uit het gesproken Belgisch-Nederlands. Unpublished PhD thesis. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-1168055
     [Google Scholar]
  67. (2020) Lectometry and latent variables: A model for underlying determinants of (normative) choices in written and audiovisual translations. Zeitschrift Für Dialektologie Und Linguistik, (), –. 10.25162/zdl‑2020‑0006
     https://doi.org/10.25162/zdl-2020-0006 [Google Scholar]
  68. Popovic, M., Lapshinova-Koltunski, E., & Koponen, M.
    (2023) Computational analysis of different translations: By professionals, students and machines. InM. Nurminen, J. Brenner, M. Koponen, S. Latomaa, M. Mikhailov, F. Schierl, T. Ranasinghe, E. Vanmassenhove, S. A. Vidal, N. Aranberri, M. Nunziatini, C. P. Escartín, M. Forcada, M. Popovic, C. Scarton, & H. Moniz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th annual conference of the European association for machine translation (pp.–). European Association for Machine Translation. https://aclanthology.org/2023.eamt-1.36/
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Prieels, L., & De Sutter, G.
    (2018) Between language policy and language reality: A corpus-based multivariate study of the interlingual and intralingual subtitling practice in Flanders. Perspectives, (), –. 10.1080/0907676X.2017.1380053
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1380053 [Google Scholar]
  70. Pym, A.
    (2011) What technology does to translating. Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, (), –. 10.3316/informit.409249876138991
     https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.409249876138991 [Google Scholar]
  71. (2015) Translating as risk management. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  72. (2020) Translation, risk management and cognition. InF. Alves & A. L. Jakobsen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and cognition (pp.–). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315178127‑29
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315178127-29 [Google Scholar]
  73. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2023) R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 〈https://www.R-project.org/〉
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Redelinghuys, K.
    (2016) Levelling-out and register variation in the translations of experienced and inexperienced translators: A corpus-based study. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, , –. 10.5774/45‑0‑198
     https://doi.org/10.5774/45-0-198 [Google Scholar]
  75. Redelinghuys, K., & Kruger, H.
    (2015) Using the features of translated language to investigate translation expertise: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/ijcl.20.3.02red
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.3.02red [Google Scholar]
  76. Ruette, T., Ehret, K., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2016) A lectometric analysis of aggregated lexical variation in written Standard English with semantic vector space models. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/ijcl.21.1.03rue
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.1.03rue [Google Scholar]
  77. Scott, M. N.
    (1998) Normalisation and readers’ expectations: A study of literary translation with reference to Lispector’s A Hora da Estrela. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Liverpool.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Sela-Sheffy, R.
    (2005) How to be a (recognized) translator: Rethinking habitus, norms, and the field of translation. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, (), –. 10.1075/target.17.1.02sel
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.17.1.02sel [Google Scholar]
  79. Speelman, D., Grondelaers, S., & Geeraerts, D.
    (2003) Profile-based linguistic uniformity as a generic method for comparing language varieties. Computers and the Humanities, (), –. 10.1023/A:1025019216574
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025019216574 [Google Scholar]
  80. Stewart, D.
    (2000) Conventionality, creativity and translated text: The implications of electronic corpora in translation. InM. Olohan (Ed.), Intercultural faultlines: Research models in translation studies: V. 1: Textual and cognitive Aspects (pp.–). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Teich, E.
    (2003) Cross-linguistic variation in system and text: A methodology for the investigation of translations and comparable texts. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110896541
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110896541 [Google Scholar]
  82. Tirkkonen-Condit, S.
    (2004) Unique items – Over- or under-represented in translated language?InA. Mauranen & P. Kujamäki (Eds.), Translation universals: Do they exist? (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.48.14tir
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.14tir [Google Scholar]
  83. Toury, G.
    (1995) Descriptive translation studies — and beyond. John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.4 [Google Scholar]
  84. Vanderauwera, R.
    (2022) Dutch novels translated into English: The transformation of a minority literature. BRILL.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Vanmassenhove, E., Shterionov, D., & Gwilliam, M.
    (2021) Machine translationese: Effects of algorithmic bias on linguistic complexity in machine translation. InP. Merlo, J. Tiedemann, & R. Tsarfaty (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th conference of the European chapter of the association for computational linguistics (pp.–). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/2021.eacl‑main.188
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.188 [Google Scholar]
  86. Vanmassenhove, E., Shterionov, D., & Way, A.
    (2019) Lost in translation: Loss and decay of linguistic richness in machine translation. InM. Forcada, A. Way, B. Haddow, & R. Sennrich (Eds.), Proceedings of machine translation summit XVII: Research track (pp.–). European Association for Machine Translation. https://aclanthology.org/W19-6622
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Xiao, R.
    (2010) How different is translated Chinese from native Chinese?: A corpus-based study of translation universals. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/ijcl.15.1.01xia
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.1.01xia [Google Scholar]
  88. Yaeger-Dror, M., Hall-Lew, L., & Deckert, S.
    (2002) It’s not or isn’t it? Using large corpora to determine the influences on contraction strategies. Language Variation and Change, (), –. 10.1017/S0954394502141044
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394502141044 [Google Scholar]
  89. Ziganshina, L. E., Yudina, E. V., Gabdrakhmanov, A. I., & Ried, J.
    (2021) Assessing human post-editing efforts to compare the performance of three machine translation engines for English to Russian translation of Cochrane plain language health information: Results of a randomised comparison. Informatics, (), . 10.3390/informatics8010009
     https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics8010009 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.24048.li
Loading
Is human translation more conservative than machine translation?
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.24048.li
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.24048.li
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.24048.li
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: mixed-effects logistic regression ; profile-based correspondence analysis ; machine translation ; risk aversion ; conservatism

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