Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Towards Responsible Machine Translation pp 113–133Cite as

Ethics and Machine Translation: The End User Perspective

  • 506 Accesses

Part of the Machine Translation: Technologies and Applications book series (MATRA,volume 4)

Abstract

This chapter analyses existing research on the ethical implications of using MT in translation and communication, and it describes results from usability experiments that focus on the inclusion of raw and post-edited MT in multilingual products and creative texts with an emphasis on users’ feedback. It also offers suggestions on how MT content should be presented to users, readers, and consumers in general. It finally considers the ethical responsibility of all stakeholders in this new digital reality. If the ethical dimension is an ecosystem, users also have the responsibility to support products that protect language, translators, and future generations.

Keywords

  • Ethics
  • Machine translation
  • Usability
  • User reception
  • Translation reception
  • Ethical responsibility
  • Sustainability

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See also Paullada (2020) on MT and power dynamics.

  2. 2.

    Richting was the MT alternative instead of Rechts (right in German).

  3. 3.

    Correcto was the MT alternative instead of Derecha because Right can have several translations, one meaning right-hand side and another one meaning correct.

  4. 4.

    The participant is referring here to the indentation where the MT proposal meant correct in Spanish instead of right. He understands left (Izquierdo) but then he sees correct (Correcto) instead of right (Derecho/a).

  5. 5.

    The translations from Catalan into English are provided by the authors.

  6. 6.

    Our ethics committees agreed that these were low-risk settings for use of MT, but in a high-risk setting this should change. At what level of risk does a study using MT without informing participants become research involving deception?

  7. 7.

    The authors offered a detailed description of copyright laws, translation and how AI might be infringing these international laws that protect authors and creators, and they suggest including work generated by AI systems.

References

  • Bender EM, Gebru T, McMillan-Major A, Shmitchel S (2021) On the dangers of stochastic parrots: can language models be too big? In: FAccT ’21, March 3–10, 2021, Virtual Event, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowker L, Ciro JB (2019) Machine translation and global research: towards improved machine translation literacy in the scholarly community, 1st edn. Emerald Publishing, Bingley

    Google Scholar 

  • Busselle R, Bilandzic H (2009) Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychol 12:321–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260903287259

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bywood L, Georgakopoulou P, Etchegoyhen T (2017) Embracing the threat: machine translation as a solution for subtitling. Perspectives 25:492–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1291695

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cadwell P, O’Brien S, DeLuca E (2019) More than tweets: a critical reflection on developing and testing crisis machine translation technology. Transl Spaces 8:300–333

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Canfora C, Ottmann A (2018) Of ostriches, pyramids, and Swiss cheese: risks in safety-critical translations. Transl Spaces 7:167–201

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Canfora C, Ottmann A (2020) Risks in neural machine translation. Transl Spaces 9:58–77

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Castilho S (2016) Acceptability of machine translated enterprise content. Ph.D. Thesis, Dublin City University

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciribuco A (2020) Translating the village: translation as part of the everyday lives of asylum seekers in Italy. Transl Spaces 9:179–201

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Colman T, Fonteyne M, Daems J, Macken L (2021) It is all in the eyes: an eye-tracking experiment to assess the readability of machine translated literature. In: The 31st meeting of computational linguistics in The Netherlands, Ghent

    Google Scholar 

  • Čulo O, Nitzke J (2016) Patterns of terminological variation in post-editing and of cognate use in machine translation in contrast to human translation. In: Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of the European association for machine translation, pp 106–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Desjardins R (2017) Translation and social media. In: Theory, in training and in professional practice, 1st edn. Palgrave Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon P, Bortolussi M, Twilley LC, Leung A (1993) Literary processing and interpretation: towards empirical foundations. Poetics 22:5–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(93)90018-C

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Doc Society v. Pompeo (2019) Doc Society v. Pompeo: a lawsuit challenging the State Department’s social media registration requirement. In: 1st Night Amendment Institute at Columbia University. https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/doc-society-v-pompeo

  • Doherty S, O’Brien S (2014) Assessing the usability of raw machine translated output: a user-centered study using eye tracking. Int J Hum Comput Interact 30:40–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2013.802199

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Federici FM, O’Brien S (2020) Cascading crises: translation as risk reduction. In: Federici FM, O’Brien S (eds) Translation in cascading crises. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerberof-Arenas A, Toral A (2020) The impact of post-editing and machine translation on creativity and reading experience. Transl Spaces 9:255–282

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Guerberof-Arenas A, Moorkens J, O’Brien S (2019) What is the impact of raw MT on Japanese users of Word: preliminary results of a usability study using eye-tracking. In: Proceedings of XVII machine translation summit. European Association for Machine Translation (EAMT), Dublin, pp 67–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerberof-Arenas A, Moorkens J, O’Brien S (2021) The impact of translation modality on user experience: an eye-tracking study of the Microsoft Word user interface. Mach Transl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-021-09267-z

  • Hakemulder J (2004) Foregrounding and its effect on readers’ perception. Discourse Process 38:193–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3802_3

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hern A (2020) Amazon hits trouble with Sweden launch over lewd translation. The Guardian

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny D, Moorkens J, de Carmo F (2020) Fair MT: towards ethical, sustainable machine translation. Transl Spaces 9:1–11

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Koponen M, Sulubacak U, Vitikainen K, Tiedemann J (2020) MT for subtitling: user evaluation of post-editing productivity. In: Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference of the European association for machine translation. European Association for Machine Translation, Lisboa, pp 115–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Kranzberg M (1986) Technology and history: “Kranzberg’s Laws”. Technol Cult 27:544–560

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Larsonneur C (2021) Neural machine translation: from commodity to commons? In: Desjardins R, Larsonneur C, Lacour P (eds) When translation goes digital: case studies and critical reflections. Springer, Cham, pp 257–280

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Liebling DJ, Lahav M, Evans A et al (2020) Unmet needs and opportunities for mobile translation AI. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Honolulu, pp 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Marking (2020) Thai mistranslation shows risk of auto-translating social media content. Slator

    Google Scholar 

  • Massidda S (2015) Audiovisual translation in the digital age: The Italian fansubbing phenomenon, 1st edn. Palgrave Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Matusov E, Wilken P, Georgakopoulou Y (2019) Customizing neural machine translation for subtitling. In: Proceedings of the fourth conference on machine translation, vol 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, Florence, pp 82–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehta S, Azarnoush B, Chen B, et al (2020) Simplify-then-translate: automatic preprocessing for black-box machine translation. arXiv:200511197 [cs]

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorkens J, Lewis D (2019) Research questions and a proposal for governance of translation data, p 24

    Google Scholar 

  • Nurminen M (2018) Machine translation in everyday life: What makes FAUT MT workable? In: TAUS eLearning blogs. https://blog.taus.net/elearning/machine-translation-in-everyday-life-what-makes-faut-mt-workable. Accessed 25 Aug 2020

  • Nurminen M, Koponen M (2020) Machine translation and fair access to information. Transl Spaces 9:150–169

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • O’Mathúna DP, Escartín CP, Roche P, Marlowe J (2020) Engaging citizen translators in disasters: virtue ethics in response to ethical challenges. TIS 15:57–79. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.20003.oma

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Olohan M (2017) Intercultural faultlines: research models in translation studies: v. 1: textual and cognitive aspects. Routledge, London

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman R, Sheridan TB, Wickens CD (2000) A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 30:286–297. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Parra Escartín C, Moniz H (2019) Ethical considerations on the use of machine translation and crowdsourcing in cascading crises. In: Translation in cascading crises, 1st edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Paullada A (2020) How does machine translation shift power? In: Resistance AI workshop at NeurIPs 2020, Virtual Event, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Pichai S (2016) Google I/O 2016 - keynote

    Google Scholar 

  • Quirk C, Menezes A, Cherry C (2005) Dependency treelet translation: syntactically informed phrasal SMT. In: Proceedings of the 43rd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (ACL’05). Association for Computational Linguistics, Ann Arbor, pp 271–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Raley R (2003) Machine translation and global English. Yale J Crit 16:291–313

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rey B (2014) Your tweet half-life is 1 billion times shorter than Carbon-14’s. In: Wiselytics. https://www.wiselytics.com/blog/tweet-isbillion-time-shorter-than-carbon14/. Accessed 3 May 2021

  • Schmidtke D, Groves D (2019) Automatic translation for software with safe velocity. In: Proceedings of machine translation summit XVII volume 2: translator, project and user tracks. European Association for Machine Translation, Dublin, pp 159–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith R (2018) The google translate world cup. The New York Times

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumita E (2017) Social innovation based on speech-to-speech translation technology targeting the 2020 Tokyo Olympic/Paralympic Games Presentation at MT Summit XVI, Nagoya, Japan

    Google Scholar 

  • Thicke L (2013) Post-editor shortage and MT. Multilingual Magaz 2013:42–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Toral A (2019) Post-editese: an Exacerbated Translationese. arXiv:190700900 [cs]

    Google Scholar 

  • Toral A, Way A (2018) What level of quality can neural machine translation attain on literary text? arXiv:180104962 [cs]

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanmassenhove E, Shterionov DS, Way A (2019) Lost in translation: loss and decay of linguistic richness in machine translation. In: Proceedings of machine translation summit XVII volume 1: research track. European Association for Machine Translation, Dublin, pp 222–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Vieira LN, O’Hagan M, O’Sullivan C (2020) Understanding the societal impacts of machine translation: a critical review of the literature on medical and legal use cases. Inf Commun Soc 1:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1776370

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Vollmer SM (2020) The digital literacy practices of newly arrived Syrian refugees: a spatio-visual linguistic ethnography. PhD Thesis, University of Leeds

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Xu C, Guzman F, et al (2021) Putting words into the system’s mouth: a targeted attack on neural machine translation using monolingual data poisoning. arXiv:210705243 [cs]

    Google Scholar 

  • Way A (2018) Quality expectations of machine translation. In: Moorkens J, Castilho S, Gaspari F, Doherty S (eds) Translation quality assessment: from principles to practice. Springer, Berlin, pp 159–178

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver W (1949) Translation. UNESCO memo. Rockefeller Foundation

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner L (1983) Technologies as forms of life. In: Cohen RS, Wartofsky MW (eds) Epistemology, methodology and the social sciences. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 249–263

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Yanisky-Ravid S, Martens C (2019) From the myth of babel to google translate: confronting malicious use of artificial intelligence – copyright and algorithmic biases in online translation systems. SSRN J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3345716

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Guildford, UK

    Ana Guerberof-Arenas

  2. University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands

    Ana Guerberof-Arenas

  3. Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

    Joss Moorkens

Authors
  1. Ana Guerberof-Arenas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joss Moorkens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Guerberof-Arenas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Arts and Humanities, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Helena Moniz

  2. Research & Development, RWS Language Weaver, Dublin, Ireland

    Carla Parra Escartín

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Guerberof-Arenas, A., Moorkens, J. (2023). Ethics and Machine Translation: The End User Perspective. In: Moniz, H., Parra Escartín, C. (eds) Towards Responsible Machine Translation. Machine Translation: Technologies and Applications, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14689-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14689-3_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-14688-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-14689-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

search

Navigation