Human factors in machine translation and post-editing among institutional translators

References

1. Barbour, Rosaline
   2007 Doing Focus Groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781849208956
   https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208956 [Google Scholar]
2. Bonet, Josep
   2013 Honing 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 Unpublished DGT intranet report.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
   2013 Translation in the Digital Age. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
   [Google Scholar]
6. DePalma, Donald A. , and Benjamin B. Sargent
   2013 Transformative Translation. Cambridge: Common Sense Advisory.
   [Google Scholar]
7. DePalma, Donald A. , Vijayalaxmi Hegde , Hélène Pielmeier , and Robert G. Stewart
   2013 The 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 “MT@EC: 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
    2012 Translation 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
    2008 Translating 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 MT@EC in 2014 and Beyond.” Paper presented at European Parliament Science and Technology Options Assessment , Brussels, December 3.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Kluvanec, Daniel
    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. Lagoudaki, Elina
    2008 Expanding 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
    2011 Focus 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
    1997 Focus 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 “MT@EC – 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
    2006 Translation 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
    2015 Machine Translation Annual Activity Report 2014. Unpublished DGT intranet report. AccessedMay 25, 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Stewart, D. Friedman , and Prem N. Shamdasani
    2015 Focus 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]