Volume 9, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-3711
  • E-ISSN: 2211-372X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



We analysed focus group interview data collected from 22 project managers (PMs) working in Japan, covering their experiences of machine translation post-editing (MTPE). A Social Construction of Technology analysis of how PMs describe different social groups in translation enabled us to examine the meanings those groups attach to MTPE, the intricate and complex power structures which exist between them, and the negotiations that take place in their day-to-day operations. The examination discovered that MTPE is still in a fluid and controversial state due to the difficulty of meeting all groups’ interests, which may lead to MTPE’s disappearance as a business model and the eventual dominance of conventional human translation and raw MT. We conclude that establishing ethical and sustainable translation workflows for all social groups will be vital for MTPE’s survival, which will require careful consideration of the complexity of these social groups and negotiations between them.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abdallah, Kristiina, and Kaisa Koskinen
    2007 “Managing Trust: Translating and the Network Economy.” Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs52 (4): 673–87. doi:  10.7202/017692ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/017692ar [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, Ross, Meg Guerreiro, and Jo Smith
    2016 “Are All Biases Bad? Collaborative Grounded Theory in Developmental Evaluation of Education Policy.” Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation12 (27): 44–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Association of Translation Companies
    Association of Translation Companies 2017 “ISO 18587 on MT Post-Editing Gaining Traction.” Blog. AccessedAugust 1, 2017. https://atc.org.uk/iso-18587-on-mt-post-editing-gaining-traction/
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bowker, Lynne
    2006 “Translation Memory and ‘Text.’” InLexicography, Terminology, and Translation: Text-Based Studies in Honour of Ingrid Meyer, edited byLynne Bowker, 175–87. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. 10.2307/j.ctt1ckpgs3.16
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1ckpgs3.16 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cadwell, Patrick, Sharon O’Brien, and Carlos S. C. Teixeira
    2018 “Resistance and Accommodation: Factors for the (Non-) Adoption of Machine Translation among Professional Translators.” Perspectives26 (3): 301–21. doi:  10.1080/0907676X.2017.1337210
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1337210 [Google Scholar]
  6. Daems, Joke, Sonia Vandepitte, Robert J. Hartsuiker, and Lieve Macken
    2017 “Identifying the Machine Translation Error Types with the Greatest Impact on Post-Editing Effort.” Frontiers in Psychology8 (August): 1–15. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01282
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01282 [Google Scholar]
  7. Davies, Denis
    2019 “7 Ways AI Will Power Intelligent Content and Customer Engagement in 2020.” SDL Blog. AccessedDecember 20, 2019. https://www.sdl.com/blog/SDL-2020-predictions-trends.html
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dragsted, Barbara
    2006 “Computer-Aided Translation as a Distributed Cognitive Task.” Pragmatics & Cognition14 (2): 443–64. doi:  10.1075/pc.14.2.17dra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.14.2.17dra [Google Scholar]
  9. Dranch, Konstantin
    2016 “UK Language Services Market 2016.” London: The Association of Translation Companies (ATC).
  10. Eakins, Sophia
    2019 “Top Lionbridge AI Blog Posts of 2019.” Lionbridge Insights. AccessedDecember 17, 2019. https://www.lionbridge.com/blog/top-6-ai-blog-posts-of-2019/
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Garcia, Ignacio
    2007 “Power Shifts in Web-Based Translation Memory.” Machine Translation21 (1): 55–68. doi:  10.1007/s10590‑008‑9033‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-008-9033-6 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2011 “Translating by Post-Editing: Is It the Way Forward?” Machine Translation25 (3): 217–37. doi:  10.1007/s10590‑011‑9115‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-011-9115-8 [Google Scholar]
  13. Giotta, Gina
    2018 “Teaching Technological Determinism and Social Construction of Technology Using Everyday Objects.” Communication Teacher32 (3): 136–40. doi:  10.1080/17404622.2017.1372589
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2017.1372589 [Google Scholar]
  14. Glaser, Barney G., and Alselm L. Strauss
    1967The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Göpferich, Susanne, and Riitta Jääskeläinen
    2009 “Process Research into the Development of Translation Competence: Where Are We, and Where Do We Need to Go?” Across Languages and Cultures10 (2): 169–91. 10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.1 [Google Scholar]
  16. Guerberof Arenas, Ana
    2013 “What Do Professional Translators Think about Post-Editing?” The Journal of Specialised Translation, no.19: 75–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hassan, Hany, Anthony Aue, Chang Chen, Vishal Chowdhary, Jonathan Clark, Christian Federmann, Xuedong Huang,
    2018 “Achieving Human Parity on Automatic Chinese to English News Translation.” doi:  10.1109/TDEI.2009.5211872
    https://doi.org/10.1109/TDEI.2009.5211872 [Google Scholar]
  18. Holz-Mänttäri, Justa
    1984Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie Und Methode. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hubscher-Davidson, Séverine
    2018Emotion and the Translation Process. Translation and Emotion: A Psychological Perspective. New York and London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Isahara, Hitoshi
    2015 “Translation Technology in Japan.” InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Translation Technology, edited bySin-Wai Chan, 315–26. Oxfordshire, England & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Japan Translation Federation
    Japan Translation Federation 2018 “2017 Dai 5 Kai Honyaku Tuyaku Gyokaichosa Hokokusho (2017, the 5th Translation and Interpreting Industry Survey – Report).” AccessedMarch 14, 2020. https://www.jtf.jp/jp/useful/report.html
  22. Kenny, Dorothy
    2011 “The Ethics of Machine Translation.” InNew Zealand Society of Translators and Interpreters Annual Conference 2011. Auckland, New Zealand. AccessedMarch 14, 2020. doras.dcu.ie/17606/
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Klein, Hans K., and Daniel Lee Kleinman
    2002 “The Social Construction of Technology: Structural Considerations.” Science, Technology, & Human Values27 (1): 28–52. 10.1177/016224390202700102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390202700102 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kline, Ronald, and Trevor Pinch
    1996 “Users as Agents of Technological Change: The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States.” Technology and Culture37 (4): 763–95. doi:  10.2307/3107097
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3107097 [Google Scholar]
  25. Läubli, Samuel, Rico Sennrich, and Martin Volk
    2018 “Has Machine Translation Achieved Human Parity? A Case for Document-Level Evaluation.” InProceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 4791–96. Brussels, Belgium: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07048v1. 10.18653/v1/D18‑1512
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1512 [Google Scholar]
  26. Massardo, Isabella, Jaap van der Meer, Sharon O’Brien, Fred Hollowood, Nora Aranberri, and Katrin Drescher
    2016 “MT Post-Editing Guidelines.” AccessedMarch 14, 2020. https://www.taus.net/think-tank/articles/postedit-articles/taus-post-editing-guidelines
  27. Moorkens, Joss
    2017 “Under Pressure: Translation in Times of Austerity.” Perspectives25 (3): 1–14. doi:  10.1080/0907676X.2017.1285331
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1285331 [Google Scholar]
  28. Moorkens, Joss, David Lewis, Wessel Reijers, Eva Vanmassenhove, and Andy Way
    2016 “Translation Resources and Translator Disempowerment.” InProceedings of ETHI-CA2 2016: ETHics In Corpus Collection, Annotation & Application, edited byLaurence Devillers, Björn Schuller, Emily Mower Provost, Peter Robinson, Joseph Mariani, and Agnes Delaborde, 49–53. Portorož. AccessedMarch 14, 2020. www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2016/workshops/LREC2016Workshop-ETHICA2_Proceedings.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Moorkens, Joss, Antonio Toral, Sheila Castilho, and Andy Way
    2018 “Translators’ Perceptions of Literary Post-Editing Using Statistical and Neural Machine Translation.” Translation Spaces7 (2): 240–62. doi:  10.1075/ts.18014.moo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.18014.moo [Google Scholar]
  30. O’Brien, Sharon
    2011 “Towards Predicting Post-Editing Productivity.” Machine Translation25 (3): 197–215. doi:  10.1007/s10590‑011‑9096‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-011-9096-7 [Google Scholar]
  31. Olohan, Maeve
    2011 “Translators and Translation Technology: The Dance of Agency.” Translation Studies4 (3): 342–57. 10.1080/14781700.2011.589656
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2011.589656 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2017 “Technology, Translation and Society.” Target29 (2): 264–83. doi:  10.1075/target.29.2.04olo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.29.2.04olo [Google Scholar]
  33. Pielmeier, Hélène
    2019 “Is AI Everywhere in the Language Services Industry?” Multilingual 2019 AccessedMarch 14, 2020. https://magazine.multilingual.com/previewissue/sept-oct-2019/is-ai-everywhere-in-the-language-services-industry/
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Pinch, Trevor J., and Wiebe E. Bijker
    1984 “The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other.” Social Studies of Science14 (3): 399–441. AccessedMarch 14, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/285355
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Presas, Marisa, Pilar Cid-Leal, and Olga Torres-Hostench
    2016 “Machine Translation Implementation among Language Service Providers in Spain: A Mixed Methods Study.” Journal of Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science3 (1): 126–44. doi:  10.1558/jrds.30331
    https://doi.org/10.1558/jrds.30331 [Google Scholar]
  36. Reiss, Katharina
    2000Translation Criticism, the Potentials and Limitations: Categories and Criteria for Translation Quality Assessment. Oxfordshire, England: Routledge. AccessedMarch 14, 2020. capitadiscovery.co.uk/port/items/1222356
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Reiss, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer
    2013Towards a General Theory of Translational Action: Skopos Theory Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Richards, Lyn, and Janice M. Morse
    2007README FIRST for a User’s Guide to Qualitative Methods, 2nd Edition. London: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Sakamoto, Akiko
    2019 “Why Do Many Translators Resist Post-Editing? A Sociological Analysis Using Bourdieu’ s Concepts.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, no.31: 201–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. . forthcoming. “The Value of Translation in the Era of Automation: An Examination of Threats.” InWhen Translation Goes Digital edited by Renée Desjardins, Claire Larsonneur, and Philippe Lacour. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sakamoto, Akiko, Begona Rodríguez de Céspedes, Sarah Berthaud, and Jonathan Evans
    2017 “When Translation Meets Technologies: Language Service Providers (LSPs) in the Digital Age – Focus Group Report [Commissioned Report by the ITI].” Portsmouth. AccessedMarch 14, 2020. https://www.iti.org.uk/professional-development/research/university-of-portsmouth/1087-translation-meets-technologies
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Sakamoto, Akiko, and Masaru Yamada
    2019 “The Current State of Technology Use in the Translation Industry in Japan: Project Managers’ Views – Focus Group Report翻訳業界におけるテクノロジー使用の現状:現場の声から フォーカスグループ報告書.” Translated byAlison Burnicle. AccessedMarch 14, 2020. https://translation.apple-eye.com
  43. TAUS
    TAUS. n.d. “TAUS Partner Foundation Board.” AccessedMarch 14, 2020. https://www.taus.net/events/taus-partner-foundation-board#board-members
  44. The British Standards Institution
    The British Standards Institution 2018 “BS EN 17100:2015+A1:2017 BSI Standards Publication Translation Services – Requirements for Translation Services.” London.
  45. Toral, Antonio, Sheila Castilho, Ke Hu, and Andy Way
    2018 “Attaining the Unattainable? Reassessing Claims of Human Parity in Neural Machine Translation.” InProceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, 1:113–23. Brussels, Belgium: Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:  10.18653/v1/W18‑6312
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-6312 [Google Scholar]
  46. Vieira, Lucas Nunes, and Elisa Alonso
    2019 “Translating Perceptions and Managing Expectations: An Analysis of Management and Production Perspectives on Machine Translation.” Perspectives28 (2): 163–184. doi:  10.1080/0907676X.2019.1646776
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1646776 [Google Scholar]
  47. Winner, Langdon
    1999 “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” InThe Social Shaping of Technology, 2nd Ed., edited byJudy Wajcman and Donald MacKenzie, 28–40. Backingham: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Yamada, Masaru
    2019 “The Impact of Google Neural Machine Translation on Post-Editing by Student Translators.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, no.31: 87–106.
    [Google Scholar]
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