Machine Translation

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 49–67

Can college students be post-editors? An investigation into employing language learners in machine translation plus post-editing settings

Article

Abstract

Despite the pressure to reduce costs in the advent of machine translation plus post-editing (PE), many professional translators are reluctant to accept PE jobs, which are perceived as requiring less skill and yielding poorer quality products than human translation (HT). This trend in turn raises an issue in the industry, namely, a lack of post-editors. To meet the growing demand for PE, new populations—such as college language learners—should be assessed as potential post-editor candidates. This paper investigates this possibility through an experiment focusing on college language learners’ PE qualifications and resultant performance. Data collected on perceived ease of task, editing quantity, and quality of final product were correlated with the students’ course grades. The investigation found that over 74 % of students felt PE to be an easier task than HT, whereas 26 % did not. Those students who did not find PE easier were determined to be unqualified post-editors. Students who received poor grades in a traditional translation course were also confirmed to be unqualified, though A-students were not always qualified post-editors. The variable performance among A-students may be understood in terms of different approaches to PE, characterized as utilizing either analytic or integrated processing. An analysis using this framework tentatively concludes that A-students who apply an analytic approach, more typical of novice translators, may perform better as post-editors than those who take an integrated approach.

Keywords

Post-editing Translation training Post-editor  Student translator Machine translation 

References

  1. Allen J (2003) Post-editing. In: Somers H (ed) Computers and translation: a translator’s guide. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 297–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowker L (2005) Productivity vs. quality: a pilot study on the impact of translation memory systems. Localisation Focus 4(1):13–20Google Scholar
  3. Doddington G (2002) Automatic evaluation of machine translation quality using n-gram co-occurrence statistics. In: HLT 2002: Human Language Technology Conference: proceedings of the second international conference on human language technology research. San Diego, California, pp 138–145Google Scholar
  4. Dragsted B (2004) Segmentation in translation and translation memory systems: An empirical investigation of cognitive segmentation and effects of integrating a TM system into the translation process. PhD Thesis, Copenhagen Business School, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  5. Fiederer R, O’Brien S (2009) Quality and machine translation: a realistic objective? J Special Transl 11: 52–74Google Scholar
  6. García I (2010) Is machine translation ready yet? Target 22(1):7–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Groves D, Schmidtke D (2009) Identification and analysis of post-editing patterns for MT. In: Proceedings of MT Summit XII. Ottawa, pp 429–436Google Scholar
  8. Guerberof A (2008) Productivity and quality in the post-editing of outputs from translation memories and machine translation (Unpublished minor dissertation). Universitat Rovira i Virgili, TarragonaGoogle Scholar
  9. Krings HP (2001) Repairing texts: Empirical investigations of machine translation post-editing processes, Trans. G.S. Koby. The Kent State University Press, KentGoogle Scholar
  10. Mossop B (2001) Revising and editing for translators. St Jerome, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  11. O’Brien S (2002) Teaching post-editing: a proposal for course content. In: Proceedings of the 6th EAMT Workshop on “Teaching Machine Translation”. Manchester, pp 99–106Google Scholar
  12. O’Brien S (2007) An empirical investigation of temporal and technical post-editing effort. Transl Interpret Stud II(I):83–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Papineni K, Roukos S, Ward T, Zhu W-J (2002) BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In: ACL-2002: 40th Annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Philadelphia, PA, pp 311–318Google Scholar
  14. Plitt M, Masselot F (2010) A productivity test of statistical machine translation post-editing in a typical localization context. Prague Bull Math Linguist 93:7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Snover M, Dorr B, Schwartz R, Micciulla L, Makhoul J (2006) A study of translation edit rate with targeted human annotation. In: AMTA 2006: Proceedings of the 7th conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, “Visions for the Future of Machine Translation’, Cambridge, MA, pp 223–231Google Scholar
  16. Tatsumi M (2009) Correlation between automatic evaluation scores, post-editing speed and some other factors. In: Proceedings of MT Summit XII. Ottawa, pp 332–339Google Scholar
  17. TAUS (2010) Machine translation postediting guidelines. http://www.translationautomation.com/postediting/machine-translation-post-editing-guidelines. Accessed 10 Jan 2014
  18. Turian J, Shen L, Melamed D (2003) Evaluation of machine translation and its evaluation. In: Proceedings of the MT Summit IX, New Orleans, pp 386–393Google Scholar
  19. Veale T, Way A (1997) Gaijin: A bootstrapping approach to example-based machine translation. In: International conference on recent advances in natural language processing, Tzigov Chark, pp 239–244Google Scholar
  20. Wagner E (1985) Post-editing Systran: a challenge for commission translators. Terminol Trad 3:1–7Google Scholar
  21. Way A (2013) Traditional and emerging use-cases for machine translation. In: Proceedings of translating and the computer 35, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Yamada M (2012) Revising text: An empirical investigation of revision and the effects of integrating a TM and MT system into the translation process. PhD Thesis, Rikkyo University, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  23. Yamada M (2013) Dare ga post-editor ni naruno ka? [Who will be post editors]. Honyaku Kenkyuu e no Shootai [Introducing Translation Studies], 10. http://honyakukenkyu.sakura.ne.jp/shotai_vol10/No_10-004-Yamada.pdf Accessed 10 January, 2014

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Intercultural CommunicationRikkyo UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations