Chapter 3
Post-editing and a sustainable future for translators
Many translators and language service providers (LSPs)
emphasize a distinction between human translation (HT) and post-editing
(PE). As the perceived divide between the two tasks grows, the differing
social status of HT and PE becomes more pronounced. This has consequences
for professional identity as well as compensation. But are HT and PE
substantially different? We examine this question, mainly by reinterpreting
previous studies in translation process research. Based on these findings,
we argue that HT and PE are not radically different in terms of the skills
and effort required to achieve their shared goal of ensuring consistent,
quality translations. Therefore, the perception among practitioners and LSPs
of PE being easier and of lesser quality than HT may be baseless.
Article outline
- Introduction
- The status quo
- Use of machine translation in the industry
- MT usage by LSPs in Japan and other countries
- ISO 18587: International standards for post-editing
- Full post-editing
- Light post-editing
- Differences by translation production process
- Post-editing and the future of the translation industry
- The HT and PE divide
- Previous research on PE
- Efficiency
- Quality
- Effort and amount of editing
- Pause analysis
- The problem of inter-experimental comparison
- Is there a difference between PE and HT?
- Post-editing of NMT
- Relationship between MT error and cognitive load
- Comprehensive translation and search skills
- Conclusion: For a sustainable future of translation
-
Notes
-
References
References (36)
ALPAC
1966 ALPAC
Report, Language and Machines – Computers in Translation and
Linguistics. A Report by the Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee, Washington, DC.
Burchardt, Aljoscha., and Arle Richard Lommel
2014 QT-LaunchPad
supplement 1: Practical guidelines for the Use of MQM in Scientific
Research on Translation Quality.
[URL]
Carl, Michael, and Cristina Toledo Báez
2019 “
Machine
translation errors and the translation process: a study across
different languages.”
Journal of
Specialised
Translation 31: 107–132.
Common Sense
Advisory
2018 Machine
Translation for Human Innovation. Retrieved
on Aug
14, 2018:
[URL]
Fiederer, Rebecca, and Sharon O’Brien
2009 “
Quality
and machine translation: A realistic
objective?”
The Journal of
Specialised
Translation 11: 52–74.
Gaspari, Federico, Hala Almaghout, and Stephen Doherty
2015 “
A
survey of machine translation competences: Insights for translation
technology educators and
practitioners.”
Perspectives Studies
in
Translatology 23 (3): 1–26.
Guerberof Arenas, Ana
2010 “
Project
management and machine
translation.”
Multilingual 21 (3): 1–4.
Ikaros
2020 “
What
Will Happen? What will you do? Machine Translation
2020.”
Tsuyaku Hon’yaku
Journal [
Interpreter-Translator
Journal) 2020 Summer
Edition, Tokyo: Ikaros Shuppan.
Inokuchi, Koji
2013 “
Rikkyo SFR Translation Research Project 2013. Hon’yaku
‘kakumei’ki ni Okeru Hon’yaku
yousei [Training
Translators in the Translation
‘Revolution’],”
Report on the Public
Symposium and Future
Approaches, Rikkyo University.
International Standard
Organization
(ISO)
2015 ISO 17100.
2015. Translation services – Requirements for translation
services. First edition.
International Standard
Organization
(ISO)
2017 ISO 18587
Translation services – Post-editing of machine translation output –
Requirements.
JTF
2017 2017
nendo Hon’yaku Hakusho: Dai 5 kai gyokai chosa houkokusho [FY2017
Translation White Paper: the 5th Industry Survey
Report]. Japan Translation Federation (JTF).
Kelly, Nataly
2014 “
Why
so many translators hate translation
technology.”
Huffpost, June 19,
2014.
[URL]
Koponen, Maarit
2016 “
Is
machine translation post-editing worth the effort? A survey of
research into post-editing and
effort.”
The Journal of Specialised
Translation 25: 131–148.
Krings, Hans. P.
2001 Repairing
Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-Editing
Processes, (
Geoffrey S. Koby, trans.), Kent, Ohio: The Kent State University Press.
Lacruz, Isabel, and Gregory M. Shreve
2014 “
Pauses
and cognitive effort in
post-editing.” In
Post-editing
of Machine Translation: Processes and
Applications, ed.
by
Sharon O’Brien,
Laura Winther Balling,
Michael Carl,
Michel Simard, and
Lucia Specia, 246–272. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.
Melby, Alan. K., Paul Fields, and Jason Housley
2014 “
Assessment
of post-editing via structured translation
specifications.” In
Post-editing
of Machine Translation: Processes and
Applications, ed.
by
Sharon O’Brien,
Laura Winther Balling,
Michael Carl,
Michel Simard, and
Lucia Specia, 274–298. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.
Moorkens, Joss, and Sharon O’Brien
2017 Assessing
user interface needs of post- editors of machine
translation. In
Human
Issues in Translation Technology, ed.
by
Dorothy Kenny, 110–130. Florence: Taylor and Francis.
O’Brien, Sharon
2006 “
Pauses
as indicators of cognitive effort in post-editing machine
translation output.”
Across Languages
and
Cultures 7: 1–21.
Onishi, Nanami
2020 “
Translator’s
research skill improves translation quality: A comparative analysis
of MT and HT.”
Tenth IATIS Regional
Workshop at Kansai University, September 3,
2020.
Onishi, Nanami, and Masaru Yamada
2020 “
Why
translator competence in information searching matters: An empirical
investigation into differences in searching behavior between
professionals and novice
translators.”
Invitation to
Interpreting and Translation
Studies 22: 1–22.
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
Linguistics 93: 7–16.
Robert, Anne-Marie
2013 “
Did
you say post-editor? Some elements of a personal
journey.”
The Journal of Specialised
Translation 19: 29–40.
Sakamoto, Akiko
2019 “
Why
do many translators resist post-editing? A sociological analysis
using Bourdieu’s concepts.”
The
Journal of Specialised
Translation 31: 201–216.
Sakamoto, Akiko, and Masaru Yamada
2019 “
Industrial
translation in the AI era: a frontline honest and undercover
roundtable discussion,”
JTF
Journal 304: 8–18.
Snover, Matthew, Bonnie Dorr, Richard Schwartz, Linnea Micciulla, and John Makhoul
2006 “
A
study of translation edit rate with targeted human
annotation.” In
Proceedings
of the 7th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in
the Americas. Association for Machine Translation in the
Americas, ed. by
L. Gerber et al., 223–231.
Sostaric, Margita, Nataša Pavlović, and Filip Boltuzic
2019 “
Domain
adaptation for machine translation involving a low-resource
language: Google AutoML vs. from-scratch NMT
systems.”
Translating and the
Computer 41: 113–124.
Tatsumi, Midori
2009 “
Correlation
between automatic evaluation metric scores, Post-editing speed, and
some other
factors.” In
Proceedings
of the MT Summit XI. Association for Machine Translation in the
Americas, ed. by
L. Gerber et al., 332–339.
Temnikova, Irina
2010 “
A
cognitive evaluation approach for a controlled language post-editing
experiment.” In
Proceedings
of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources and
Evaluation. European Language Resources Association
(ELRA), ed. by
N. Calzolari et al., 3485–3490.
Vermeer, Hans. J.
2000 Skopos
and Commission in Translational
Action. In
The
Translation Studies Reader, ed.
by
L. Venuti, 221–232. New York, NY: Routledge.
Way, Andy
2020 “
The
effect of NMT on translators and the translation
process.”
Invited Talk at 5th
Translation in Transition (TT5), Oct 17,
2020.
Yamada, Masaru
2019 “
The
impact of Google Neural Machine Translation on post-editing by
student translators.”
The Journal of
Specialised
Translation 31: 87 – 106.
Yamada, Masaru
2020 “
Post-editing
and a sustainable future for
translators.”
Invited Talk at 5th
Translation in Transition (TT5), Oct 16,
2020.
Yamada, Masaru
2021 “
Post-edit to jizoku kanou na hon’yaku no
mirai [Post-editing and a sustainable future for
translators].”
Bulletin: Faculty of
Foreign Language Studies, Kansai
University 24: 83–105.
Zhechev, Ventsislav
2014 Analysing
the post-editing of machine translation at
Autodesk. In
Post-editing
of Machine Translation: Processes and
Applications, ed.
by
Sharon O’Brien,
Laura Winther Balling,
Michael Carl,
Michel Simard and
Lucia Specia, 2–13. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.