1887
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-3711
  • E-ISSN: 2211-372X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In September 2015, the ADAPT Centre for Digital Content Technology carried out a focus group study of 70 translators at the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation (DGT). The aim was to better understand the factors involved in the translators’ adoption and non-adoption of machine translation (MT) during their translation tasks. Our analysis showed that, while broadly positive attitudes to MT could be observed, MT was not consistently adopted for all tasks. We argue that ergonomic factors related to a human translator’s needs, abilities, limitations, and overall well-being heavily impacted on participants’ decisions to use MT or not in their tasks. We further claim that it is only by taking into account the special institutional circumstances in which the activity of DGT translation is situated that these ergonomic factors can be fully understood and explained.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ts.5.2.04cad
2016-11-28
2019-09-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barbour, Rosaline
    2007Doing Focus Groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781849208956
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208956 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bonet, Josep
    2013Honing Quality in 23 Languages MT @ EC—The Right Foundation. Unpublished DGT intranet report. AccessedMay 25, 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Braun, Virginia , and Victoria Clarke
    2006 “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology3 (2): 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar]
  4. Castilho, Sheila , Sharon O’Brien , Fabio Alves , and Morgan O’Brien
    2014 “Does Post-Editing Increase Usability? A Study with Brazilian Portuguese as Target Language.” InProceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, edited by Marko Tadić , Philipp Koehn , Johann Roturier , and Andy Way , 183–190. Dubrovnik: EAMT.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cronin, Michael
    2013Translation in the Digital Age. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DePalma, Donald A. , and Benjamin B. Sargent
    2013Transformative Translation. Cambridge: Common Sense Advisory.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DePalma, Donald A. , Vijayalaxmi Hegde , Hélène Pielmeier , and Robert G. Stewart
    2013The Language Services Market: 2013. Cambridge: Common Sense Advisory.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Doherty, Stephen , and Sharon O’Brien
    2014 “Assessing the Usability of Raw Machine Translated Output: A User-Centered Study Using Eye Tracking.” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction30 (1): 40–51. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2013.802199
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2013.802199 [Google Scholar]
  9. Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen
    2014 “Challenges of Translation Process Research at the Workplace.” MonTI Monographs in Translation and Interpreting Special Issue1: 355–383. doi: 10.6035/MonTI.2014.ne1.12
    https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2014.ne1.12 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen , and Gary Massey
    2014 “Translators and Machines: Working Together.” InProceedings of the XXth World Congress of the International Federation of Translators (Vol. I), edited by Wolfram Baur , Brigitte Eichner , Sylvia Kalina , Norma Keßler , Felix Mayer , and Jeanette Ørsted , 199–207. Berlin: BDÜ.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen , and Sharon O’Brien
    2015 “Ergonomics of the Translation Workplace: Potential for Cognitive Friction.” Translation Spaces4 (1): 98–118. doi: 10.1075/ts.4.1.05ehr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.4.1.05ehr [Google Scholar]
  12. Eisele, Andreas
    2013 “[email protected]: Serving the Multilingual Needs of the European Commission.” Paper presented at 8th Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation , Sofia, August 8.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. European Commission
    2012Translation Tools and Workflow. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gaspari, Federico , Antonio Toral , Sudip Kumar Naskar , Declan Groves , and Andy Way
    2014 “Perception vs Reality: Measuring Machine Translation Post-Editing Productivity.” InProceedings of the 11th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas: Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (WPTP3), edited by Sharon O’Brien , Michel Simard , and Lucia Specia , 60–72. Vancouver: AMTA.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Guerberof Arenas, Ana
    2009 “Productivity and Quality in the Post-editing of Outputs from Translation Memories and Machine Translation.” Localisation Focus7 (1): 11–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. International Ergonomics Association
    2016 Definition and Domains of Ergonomics. AccessedJune 7, 2016. www.iea.cc/whats/index.html.
  17. Koskinen, Kaisa
    2008Translating Institutions: An Ethnographic Study of EU Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Koskinen, Kaisa , and Minna Ruokonen
    . Forthcoming. “Love Letters or Hate Mail? Translators’ Affective Responses to Technology.” InHuman Issues in Translation Technology edited by Dorothy Kenny . Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kluvanec, Daniel
    2013 “The Way Forward with [email protected] in 2014 and Beyond.” Paper presented at European Parliament Science and Technology Options Assessment , Brussels, December 3.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2014 “Getting the Right Mix: Approaches to Machine Translation in the European Commission.” InProceedings of the XXth World Congress of the International Federation of Translators (Vol. I), edited by Wolfram Baur , Brigitte Eichner , Sylvia Kalina , Norma Keßler , Felix Mayer , and Jeanette Ørsted , 51–57. Berlin: BDÜ.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Koponen, Maarit
    2012 “Comparing Human Perceptions of Post-Editing Effort with Post-Editing Operations.” InProceedings of the 7th Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, 181–190. New York: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lagoudaki, Elina
    2006 “Translation Memories Survey 2006: Users’ Perceptions around TM Use.” Paper presented at Translating and the Computer 28 , London, November 16–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2008Expanding the Possibilities of Translation Memory Systems: From the Translator’s Wishlist to the Developer’s Design. PhD Thesis, Imperial College London.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lavault-Olléon, Élisabeth
    2011 “Une introduction à la problématique « Traduction et Ergonomie » [Introducing Translation and Ergonomics].”ILCEA Traduction et Ergonomie. AccessedMay 17, 2016. https://ilcea.revues.org/1118.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Le Blanc, Matthieu
    2013 “Translators on Translation Memory (TM): Results of an Ethnographic Study in Three Translation Services and Agencies.” Translation and Interpreting5 (2): 1–13. doi: ti.105202.2013.a01
    https://doi.org/ti.105202.2013.a01 [Google Scholar]
  26. Liamputtong, Pranee
    2011Focus Group Methodology: Principle and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781473957657
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957657 [Google Scholar]
  27. Moorkens, Joss , Sharon O’Brien , Igor A.L. da Silva , Norma B. de Lima Fonseca , and Fabio Alves
    2015 “Correlations of Perceived Post-Editing Effort with Measurements of Actual Effort”. Machine Translation29 (3-4): 267–284. doi: 10.1007/s10590‑015‑9175‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-015-9175-2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Moorkens, Joss , and Sharon O’Brien
    . Forthcoming. “Assessing User Interface Needs of Post-Editors of Machine Translation.” InHuman Issues in Translation Technology edited by Dorothy Kenny . Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Morgan, David L
    1997Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781412984287
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984287 [Google Scholar]
  30. O’Brien, Sharon
    2012 “Translation as Human-Computer Interaction.” Translation Spaces1: 101–122. doi: 10.1075/ts.1.05obr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.1.05obr [Google Scholar]
  31. O’Brien, Sharon , Maureen Enhrensberger-Dow , Marcel Hasler , and Megan Connolly
    . Submitted. “Irritating CAT Tool Features that Matter to Translators” submitted to Hermes, Journal of Language and Communication, Special Issue on Translation Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Pilos, Spyridon
    2014 “[email protected] – The New Machine Translation of the European Commission.” Paper presented at CEF Information Day , Luxembourg, January 16.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Plitt, Mirko , and François Masselot
    2010 “A Productivity Test of Statistical Machine Translation Post-Editing in a Typical Localisation Context.” The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics93: 7–16. doi: 10.2478/v10108‑010‑0010‑x
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10108-010-0010-x [Google Scholar]
  34. Pym, Anthony , Alexander Perekrestenko , and Bram Starink
    2006Translation Technology and Its Teaching: (With Much Mention of Localization). Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group, Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Risku, Hanna
    2010 “A Cognitive Scientific View on Technical Communication and Translation: Do Embodiment and Situatedness Really Make a Difference?” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies22 (01): 94–111. doi: 10.1075/target.22.1.06ris
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.22.1.06ris [Google Scholar]
  36. Risku, Hanna , and Florian Windhager
    2013 “Extended Translation: A Socio-Cognitive Research Agenda.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies25 (1): 33–45. doi: 10.1075/target.25.1.04ris
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.04ris [Google Scholar]
  37. Rummel, Dieter
    2015Machine Translation Annual Activity Report 2014. Unpublished DGT intranet report. AccessedMay 25, 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Stewart, D. Friedman , and Prem N. Shamdasani
    2015Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Teixeira, Carlos S.C
    2014 “Perceived vs. Measured Performance in the Post-Editing of Suggestions from Machine Translation and Translation Memories” InProceedings of the 11th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas: Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (WPTP3), edited by Sharon O’Brien , Michel Simard , and Lucia Specia , 450–59. Vancouver: AMTA.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Van den Bergh, Jan , Eva Geurts , Donald Degraen , Mieke Haesen , Iulianna van der Lek-Ciudin , and Karin Coninx
    2016 “Recommendations for Translation Environments to Improve Translators’ Workflows.” Paper presented at Translating and the Computer 38 , London, November 17–18.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ts.5.2.04cad
Loading
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