Cover not available
Part of
Handbook of Translation Studies: Volume 5
Edited by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer
[Handbook of Translation Studies 5] 2021
► pp. 177–183

Post-editing

| Dublin City University
Article outline
  • 1.Historical context
  • 2.Issues and debates
    • 2.1Productivity
    • 2.2Quality and cost
    • 2.3Training
    • 2.4Tools
  • 3.Future outlook
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 16 September 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.5.pos3
References (14)
Doherty, Stephen
2016 “The Impact of Translation Technologies on the Process and Product of Translation.” International Journal of Communication 10 (2016): 947–969.Google Scholar
Forcada, Mikel
2017 “Making Sense of Neural Machine Translation.” Translation Spaces 6 (2): 291–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaspari, Federico, Antonio Toral, Sudip Kumar Naskar, Declan Groves, and Andy Way
2014 “Perception vs. Reality: Measuring Machine Translation Post-Editing Productivity.” In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas: Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice (WPTP3), ed. by Sharon O’Brien, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia, 60–72. Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Guerberof Arenas, Ana
2009 “Productivity and Quality in MT Post-Editing.” In XII MT Summit Workshop: Beyond Translation Memories, 26–30 Aug 2009, Ottawa, Canada. Available online at: [URL] (last checked on 27/03/2020).Google Scholar
2014 “Correlations between Productivity and Quality when Post-Editing in a Professional Context.” Machine Translation 28: 165–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Mossop, Brian
2011 “Revision.” In: Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol. 2 , ed. by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 135–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, Daniel and Olivier Blanchard
2019 Human/Machine: The Future of our Partnership with Machines. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon
2012 “Translation as Human-Computer Interaction.” Translation Spaces 1:101–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon and Silvia Rodríguez Vázquez
2019 “Translation and Technology”. In Routledge Handbook of Translation and Education, ed. by Sara Laviosa and Maria González-Davies, 264–277. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plitt, Mirko and François Masselot
2010 “A Productivity Test of Statistical Machine Translation Postediting in a Typical Localisation Context.” Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 93: 7–16, 2010. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
TAUS (Online)
MT Post-Editing Guidelines.” [URL].
Vasconcellos, Muriel
1985 “Management of the Machine Translation Environment: Interaction of Functions at the Pan American Health Organization.” In Tools for the Trade, ed. by Veronica Lawson. Translating and the Computer 5, 115–129. London: Aslib.Google Scholar
Wagner, Elizabeth
1985 “Rapid Post-Editing of Systran.” In Tools for the Trade, ed. by Veronica Lawson. Translating and the Computer 5, 199–213. London: Aslib.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by 2 other publications

Zhang, Qi, Caitríona Osborne & Joss Moorkens
2024. MT error detection and correction by Chinese language learners. Translation and Interpreting Studies DOI logo
Rico, Celia
2022. Mind the gap. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 68:5 ► pp. 697 ff. DOI logo

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.