Article published in:
APTIF 9 - Reality vs. Illusion: From Morse code to machine translation
Edited by Frans De Laet, In-kyoung Ahn and Joong-chol Kwak
[Babel 66:4/5] 2020
► pp. 811–828

Defining language dependent post-editing guidelines for specific content

The case of the English-Korean pair to improve literature machine translation styles

| Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
The rapid development of neural machine translation systems and the emergence of the e-book have broadened the scope of text types that can be translated by machines. At the early stage of the machine’s infiltration into the translation field, target texts were mainly technical texts such as patents, instruction manuals, etc. Literary texts have been considered as the last bastion of human translation because the machine translation (MT) has produced word-for-word translation, unsuitable for literary texts with distinct stylistic elements. However, it turns out that the field of literary translation was not immune to the rise of MT. Style is one of the critical elements in literary texts, but it has been dismissed in the existing MT post-editing guidelines. Therefore, this research attempts to provide methodological ideas about how to come up with a machine translation post-editing guideline (MTPE) for style improvement especially for language pairs with divergent syntax and semantics like English and Korean. First, the linguistic and cultural differences in writing styles are sorted out based on previous research. Second, the different ways in which human translators address writing style are investigated. Third, the strategies that human translators employ in their translations are applied to machine translation post-editing to demonstrate how the strategies can be incorporated into English-Korean MTPE to improve style. This preliminary research would lay the groundwork for refining post-editing style guidelines and for accumulating manually post-edited data for style improvement, which would be conducive to building and customizing automatic post-editing systems.
Keywords: machine translation (MT), machine translation post-editing (MTPE), literature MT, style guideline in literature MTPE, differences between English and Korean
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Literary text machine translation
    • 2.2The necessity of establishing a style guidelinein literary text machine translation
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Linguistic and cultural differences in language usebetween English and Korean
    • 3.2Human translators’ strategies for style improvement
      • 3.2.1Inserting onomatopoeia and mimetic words
      • 3.2.2Inserting intensifiers
    • 3.3Application to machine translation post-editing
      • 3.3.1Inserting mimetic words to MTs from English to Korean
      • 3.3.2Inserting intensifiers to MTs from Korean to English
  • 4.Discussions and limitations
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 July 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00174.mah
References
D’Andrade, Roy
1995 The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. New York (NY): CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Essbaum, Jill Alexander
2015 Hausfrau. New York: Random House Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Flanagan, Marian; and Tina Paulsen Christensen
2014 “Testing Post-editing Guidelines: How Translation Trainees Interpret Them and How to Tailor Them for Translator Training Purposes”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8 (2): 257–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Edward T.
1976 Beyond Culture. Garden City (NY): Anchor Press.Google Scholar
Han, Kang
2007 The Vegetarian. Transl. by Debora Smith. London: Portobello Books.Google Scholar
Hara, Kazuya; and Min-Sun Kim
2004 “The Effect of Self-Construals on Conversational Indirectness”. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (1): 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hu, Ke; and Patrick Cadwell
2016 “A Comparative Study of Post-editing Guidelines”. Baltic J. Modern Computing 4 (2): 346–353.Google Scholar
Jones, Ruth; and Ann Irvine
2013 “The (Un)faithful Machine Translator”. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Language Technology for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, and Humanities, 96–101. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kim, Do-Hun
2014 “Comparison between Korean-English Onomatopoeia and Translation of Korean Onomatopoeia into English”. The Journal of Translation Studies 15 (1): 25–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Heejung S.; and David K. Sheman
2007 “Express Yourself: Culture and the Effect of Self-Expression on Choice”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 921: 1–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koglin, Arlene
2015 “An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Effort Required to Post-edit Machine Translated Metaphors Compared to the Translation of Metaphors”. Translation & Interpreting 7 (1): 126–143.Google Scholar
Lee, Chang-Soo
2007 “An Analysis of the Functional Effectiveness of Translated English Tourist Information Texts”. Conference Interpretation and Translation 9 (2): 155–180.Google Scholar
Mah, Seung-Hye
2016 “A Case Study of a Communicative Literary Translation and its Pedagogical Implications”. Interpretation and Translation 18 (1): 47–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mesa-Lao, Bartolomé
2013 “Introduction to Post-editing-The CasMaCat GUI”. http://​bridge​.cbs​.dk​/projects​/seecat​/material​/hand​-out​_post​-editing​_bmesa​-lao​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Noh, Jinseo
2008 “Onomatopoeia in Korean-English Translation of Poetic Phrases and Translation Strategies”. Conference Interpretation and Translation 10 (1): 45–63.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon
2010 “Introduction to Post-Editing: Who, What, How and Where to Next?” https://​amta2010​.amtaweb​.org​/AMTA​/papers​/6​-01​-ObrienPostEdit​.pdf
Pérez, Celia Rico
2012 “A Flexible Decision Tool for Implementing Post-editing guidelines”. Localisation Focus 11 (1): 54–66.Google Scholar
Sachar, Louis
1998 Holes. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Shin, Jungho
2012 A Comparative Study of Symbolic words in Japanese and Korean. MA thesis. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Shin, Kyung-Sook
2008 엄마를 부탁해. Gyeonggi: Changbi Publishers.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence
1993 “Contrastive Study of Japanese and English Onomatopoeia”. Gengo 22 (6): 48–55.Google Scholar
Toral, Antonio; and Victor M. Sánchez-Cartagena
2017 “A Multifaceted Evaluation of Neural versus Phrase-based Machine Translation for 9 Language Directions”. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Vol. 1, 1063–1073. Valencia: Long Papers.Google Scholar
Toral, Antonio; and Andy Way
2015a “Machine-assisted Translation of Literary Text: A Case Study”. Translation Spaces 4 (2): 240–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015b “Translating Literary Text between Related Languages using SMT”. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT Fourth Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Literature, 123–132. Denver (CO). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 “What Level of Quality Can Neural Machine Translation Attain on Literary Text?” In Translation Quality Assessment: From Principles to Practice, ed. by Joss Moorkens; Sheila Castilho; Federico Gaspari; and Stephen Doherty, 263–287. Heidelberg: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, Miseon; Kim, Take-Min; Lim, Jinju; and Seung-Yeun Hong
2018 “Post-editing Guidelines for English-Korean Language Pairs: Guidelines and Examples for Future Post-editors”. The Journal of Translation Studies 19 (5): 43–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vaid, Jyotsna; Choi, Hyun; Chen, Hsin-Chin; and Michael Friedman
2008 “Perceiving and Responding to Embarrassing Predicaments across Languages”. The Mental Lexicon 3 (1): 121–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar