1887
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2032-6904
  • E-ISSN: 2032-6912
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article presents the results of a study in which students in a graduate translation technologies course post-edited a text they had previously translated earlier in the semester without using machine translation (MT). The results show that post-editing allowed students with performance levels below, at, and just above an established median to improve the quality of their translation products, while students with performances well above the median actually experienced a decrease in quality. Nevertheless, the post-edited products and post-editing performances of the latter remained superior to those of the former. The study shows how different translators experienced gains or not in quality by accepting different aspects of MT output and how the accepted output relates to their human renditions. It also tracks whether their post-edits were necessary and correct and how they relate to their human renditions. Tracking such behaviors attempts to provide a more holistic view of how post-editing might be qualitatively advantageous or disadvantageous.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jial.18003.kil
2019-01-21
2019-12-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Belam, Judith
    2003 “Buying up to Falling Down: A Deductive Approach to Teaching Post-Editing.” InMT Summit IX, Workshop on Teaching Translation Technologies and Tools. New Orleans, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bendana, Lola, and Alan Melby
    2012Almost Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Translation. Toronto: Multi-Languages Corporation. multi​-languages​.com​/materials​/everything​_you​_ever​_wanted​_to​_know​_about​_translation​_melby​_bendana.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Castilho, Sheila, Joss Moorkens, Federico Gaspari, Iacer Calixto, John Tinsley, and Andy Way
    2017 “Is Neural Machine Translation the New State of the Art?” The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics108 (June 2017): 109–120. 10.1515/pralin‑2017‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pralin-2017-0013 [Google Scholar]
  4. DePalma, Donald A., and Benjamin B. Sargent
    2013Translation Services and Software in the Cloud: How LSPs Will Move to Cloud-Based Solutions. Lowell, MA: Common Sense Advisory.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Depraetere, Ilse
    2010 “What Counts as Useful Advice in a University Post-Editing Training Context? Report on a Case Study.” InEAMT 2010: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation. Saint-Raphaël, France.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dillinger, Mike
    2017 “Interview with Mike Dillinger, Machine Translation Pioneer, by Tony Beckwith.” The ATA ChronicleXLVI (2): 27–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Doherty, Stephen, and Dorothy Kenny
    2014 “The Design and Evaluation of a Statistical Machine Translation Syllabus for Translation Students.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer8.2: 295–315. 10.1080/1750399X.2014.937571
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.937571 [Google Scholar]
  8. García, Ignacio
    2010 “Is Machine Translation Ready Yet?” Target, 22 (1): 7–21. 10.1075/target.22.1.02gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.22.1.02gar [Google Scholar]
  9. 2011 “Translating by Post-Editing: Is it the Way Forward?” Machine Translation25: 217–237. 10.1007/s10590‑011‑9115‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-011-9115-8 [Google Scholar]
  10. Gaspari, Federico, Hala Almaghout, and Stephen Doherty
    2015 “A Survey of Machine Translation Competences: Insights for Translation Technology Educators and Practitioners.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology23 (3): 333–358. 10.1080/0907676X.2014.979842
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2014.979842 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gile, Daniel
    1999 “Testing the Effort Models’ Tightrope Hypothesis in Simultaneous Interpreting – A Contribution.” Hermes23: 153–172.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Guerberof Arenas, Ana
    2010 “Exploring Machine Translation on the Web.” Revista Tradumática8: 1–6. revistes.uab.cat/tradumatica/article/view/n8-guerberof.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Guzmán, Rafael
    2007 “Manual MT Post-editing: If it’s not Broken, don’t Fix it!” Translation Journal11 (4). translationjournal.net/journal/42mt.htm.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hutchins, John
    2003 “The Development and Use of Machine Translation Systems and Computer-Based Translation Tools.” International Journal of Translation15 (1): 5–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kelly, Nataly, Donald A. DePalma, and Robert G. Stewart
    2012The Language Services Market: 2012 – An Annual Review of the Translation, Localization, and Interpreting Services Industry. Lowell, MA: Common Sense Advisory.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kenny, Dorothy, and Stephen Doherty
    2014 “Statistical Machine Translation in the Translation Curriculum: Overcoming Obstacles and Empowering Translators.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer8 (2): 276–294. 10.1080/1750399X.2014.936112
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.936112 [Google Scholar]
  17. Killman, Jeffrey
    2014 “Vocabulary Accuracy of Statistical Machine Translation in the Legal Context.” InProceedings of the Third Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (WPTP-3), The 11th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, 22–26 October 2014, Vancouver, BC Canada, bySharon O’Brien, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia, 85–98. Vancouver: AMTA.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2016 “Introducing Machine Translation in Translator Training: Comparing ‘Information Mining’ with Post-Editing.” EntreCulturas7–8: 179–193.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kliffer, Michael
    2005 “An experiment in MT post-editing by a class of intermediate/advanced French majors.” InEAMT 2005 Conference Proceedings, 160–165. Budapest, Hungary.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lee, Jason, and Posen Liao
    2011 “A Comparative Study of Human Translation and Machine Translation with Post-Editing.” Compilation and Translation Review4(2): 105–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Mellinger, Christopher D.
    2017 “Translators and Machine Translation: Knowledge and Skills Gaps in Translator Pedagogy.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer11 (4): 280–293. 10.1080/1750399X.2017.1359760
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2017.1359760 [Google Scholar]
  22. Mellinger, Christopher D., and Gregory M. Shreve
    2016 “Match Evaluation and Over-Editing in a Translation Memory Environment.” InReembedding Translation Process Research, byRicardo Muñoz Martín, 131–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.128.07mel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.128.07mel [Google Scholar]
  23. Mossop, Brian
    1992 “Goals of a Revision Course.” InTeaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent, and Experience, byCay Dollerup and Anne Loddegaard. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.56.14mos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.56.14mos [Google Scholar]
  24. 2007 “Empirical Studies of Revision: What We Know and Need to Know.” The Journal of Specialized Translation8 (July 2007): 5–20
    [Google Scholar]
  25. O’Brien, Sharon
    2002 “Teaching Post-Editing: A Proposal for Course Content.” In6th EAMT Workshop, Teaching Machine Translation, 99–106. Manchester, UK. Manchester, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Phelan, Mary
    2017 “Analytical Assessment of Legal Translation: A Case Study Using the American Translators Association Framework.” The Journal of Specialized Translation27 (January 2017): 189–210
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Pym, Anthony
    2009 “Using Process Studies in Translator Training: Self-Discovery through Lousy Experiments.” InMethodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research, bySusanne Göpferich, Fabio Alves, and Inge Mees, 135–156. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2011 “What Technology Does to Translating.” Translation & Interpreting3 (1): 1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2013 “Translation Skill-Sets in a Machine-translation Age.” Meta58(3): 487–503. 10.7202/1025047ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1025047ar [Google Scholar]
  30. Şahin, Mehmet, and Nilgün Dungan
    2014 “Translation Testing and Evaluation: a Study on Methods and Needs.” Translation & Interpreting, 6(2), 67–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Sánchez Gijón, Pilar, and Olga Torres-Hostench
    2014 “MT Post-Editing into the Mother Tongue or into a Foreign Language? Spanish-to-English MT Translation Output Post-Edited by Translation Trainees.” InProceedings of the Third Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (WPTP-3), The 11th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, 22–26 October 2014, Vancouver, BC Canada, bySharon O’Brien, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia, 5–19. Vancouver: AMTA.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Singh, Nitish
    2012Localization Strategies for Global E-Business. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. TAUS [Google Scholar]
  34. Yamada, Masaru
    2015 “Can College Students be Post-Editors? An Investigation into Employing Language Learners in Machine Translation plus Post-Editing Settings.” Machine Translation29 (1): 49–67. 10.1007/s10590‑014‑9167‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-014-9167-7 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jial.18003.kil
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jial.18003.kil
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): machine translation , post-editing , translation pedagogy and translation technologies
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