Cover not available
Article published In:
The Journal of Internationalization and Localization
Vol. 5:2 (2018) ► pp.142–163

‘Webbish writing’ for global communication in the Web 3.0

| National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology
Advances in information technology and the needs of globalization made English the lingua franca (EFL) of the Web 1.0. Later, multi-modes of computer-mediated communication in the Web 2.0 fostered hybrid English as a new EFL by combing English with other languages. Moving into the Web 3.0 for information mining and knowledge acquisition without a language barrier, the author proposes ‘Webbish’, a controlled form of English, to write web texts for the purpose of gisting through the production of multilingual machine translation (MT) outputs. To demonstrate the effectiveness of ‘Webbish’, an empirical survey was conducted to measure the comprehensibility of the MT of ‘Webbish’ texts based on a 1–100 grading scale. An average score of 89.9 was earned from twenty-four international participants, showing a high degree of MT comprehensibility. Meanwhile, set within the framework of postmodernism, ‘Webbish’ writing takes on postmodernist significance of non-fixed norms, dynamic meanings and an equal right of comprehensible Web information access for global non-English audiences. Its linguistic features are suited to MT application and its fluid meanings are produced due to the MT system’s rendition and different target audiences’ different interpretations. ‘Webbish’ writing suggests acceptance, inclusiveness and equality. It is also an easy way to influence and improve global communication.
Keywords: Webbish writing, controlled English, machine translation, an MT comprehensibility survey, postmodernist implications
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical review
    • 2.1The proposal of CE as ‘Webbish’
      • 2.1.1CE/Webbish as “a transitional lingua franca”
      • 2.1.2The KICSF principle for Webbish writing
    • 2.2Postmodernism
  • 3.Empirical study: Methodology
    • 3.1A survey of MT comprehensibility
      • 3.1.1Samples of Webbish writing
      • 3.1.2Respondents
      • 3.1.3Evaluation of responses
  • 4.Findings and discussion
    • 4.1Reception of the MT output of ‘Webbish’ writing
    • 4.2Postmodernist implications for ‘Webbish’ writing and its MT application
      • 4.2.1An alternative linguistic form to meet new needs
      • 4.2.2Dynamic meanings through MT application and different target audiences’ interpretations
      • 4.2.3The equal right of web-based language service to global non-English audiences
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 21 January 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jial.18002.shi
References (43)
References
Babych, Bogdan, Anthony Hartley and Serge Sharof. 2009. “Evaluation-guided Pre-editing of Source Text: Improving MT-tractability of Light Verb Constructions.” Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the EAMT: 36–43.Google Scholar
Back, Andrea. 2015. English as a Lingua Franca: The Case for ELF as an Independent, Natural and Legitimate Language. Venice, Italy: Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia.Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland. 1967. The Death of the Author. Trans. Richard Howard. [URL].
Bernstein, Abraham and Esther Kaufmann. 2006. “GINO – A Guided Input Natural Language Ontology Editor.” Proceedings of ISWC 2006: 144–157.Google Scholar
Bernth, Arendse. 1997. “EasyEnglish: A Tool for Improving Document Quality.” ANLC ’97 Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing: 159–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertens, Hans. 1979. The Idea of the Postmodern: A History. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chistiansen, Thomas. 2015. “The Rise of English as the Global Lingua Franca.” Lingue e Linguaggi, 151: 129–154.Google Scholar
Cilliers, Paul. 1998. Complexity and Postmodernism. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clark, Peter, Shaw-Yi Chaw, Ken Barker, Vinay Chaudhri, Philip Harrison, James Fan, Bonnie John, Bruce Porter, Aaron Spaulding, John Thompson and Peter Yeh. 2007. “Capturing and Answering Questions Posed to a Knowledge-based System.” Proceedings of K-CAP ’07: 63–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dear, M. J. 1986. “Postmodernism and Planning.” Environment oncf Planning, 61: 367–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1978 [1967]. Writing and Difference. ‎Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1987 [1989]. Of Spirit: Heidegger and the Question. Trans. Geoffrey Bennington and Rachel Bowlby. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Difference Between. 2018. “Difference Between Web 1.0, Web 21.0 and Web 3.0.” April 11, 2018, [URL]
Dun, Jaimy Van. 2009. “The Negative Consequences of the Use of English as a Lingua Franca in a Dutch Business Environment.” Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Utrecht University, Dutch.Google Scholar
Epstein, Barbara. 1997. “Postmodernism and the Left.” New Politics, 6 (2). April 11, 2018, [URL].
Eurostat. 2017. Foreign Language Learning Statistics. March 6, 2018, [URL]
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Language, Counter-memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews. Ed. D. F. Bouchard. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
. 2006 [1961]. History of Madness. Trans. Jonathan Murphy and Jean Khalfa. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Frath, Pierre. 2010. “Should the World Rely on English as a Lingua Franca?” Conference Proceedings of the 6th International ELT Research Conference: Current Trends in SLA Research and Language Teaching: 290–295.Google Scholar
Gerlach, Johanna, Victoria Porro, Pierrette Bouillon and Sabine Lehmann. 2013. “Combining Pre-editing and Post-editing to Improve SMT of User Generated Content.” Ed. Sharon O’Brien, Michel Simard and Lucia Specia. Proceedings of MT Summit XIV Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice: 45–53.Google Scholar
Kamprath, Christine, Eric Adolphson, Teruko Mitamura and Eric Nyberg. 1998. “Controlled Language for Multilingual Document Production: Experience with Caterpillar Technical English.” Proceedings of CLAW ’9: 51–61.Google Scholar
Klimpfinger, Theresa. 2009. “She’s Mixing the Two Languages Together – Forms and Functions of Code-switching in English as a Lingua Franca.” English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings: 348–371.Google Scholar
Kosherbayev, Zhanbolat, Aliya Mombek, Gulnar Kuzhagulova, Nasipkhanym Kamalova, Gulzhikhan Nurysheva and Viacheslav Remizov. 2016. “Theory and Practice of Multiculturalism in Europe.” CALITATEA VIEŢII, 271: 144–160.Google Scholar
Kristeva, Julia. 2000. Crisis of the European Subject. New York, NY: Other Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. Strangers to Ourselves. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kroulek, Alison. 2017. “A Translation Showdown: Man vs Machine Translation.” April 11, 2018, [URL]
Kuhn, Tobias. 2009. “How Controlled English can Improve Semantic Wikis.” Proceedings of SemWiki 2009: 1–15.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Tobias and Stefan Hoefler. 2012. “Coral: Corpus Access in Controlled Language.” Corpora, 71: 187–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazzaro, Sage. 2017. “Google is Using Artificial Intelligence to Make a Huge Change to its Translate Tool.” December 14, 2016, [URL]
Lehtola, Aarmo, Catherine Bounsaythip and Jarno Tenni. 1998. “Controlled Language Technology in Multilingual User Interfaces.” December 15, 2016, [URL]
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1984 [1979]. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Trans. Geoffrey Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
. 1988 [1983]. The Differend: Phrases in Dispute. Trans. Georges Van Den Abbeele. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
McCrum, Robert. 2010. Globish: How the English Language Became the World’s Language. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Mercader-Alarcon, Julia and Felipe Sánchez-Martínez. 2016. “Analysis of Translation Errors and Evaluation of Pre-editing Rules for the Translation of English News Texts into Spanish with Lucy LT.” December 14, 2016, [URL]. DOI logo
Mustafa, E. R.. 2012. “The Role of Foreign Language in the Success of Global Military Operations and English as a Global Lingua Franca.” International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies, 11: 279–286.Google Scholar
Nieva, Richard. 2016. “Google Translate just Got a Lot Smarter.” December 14, 2016, [URL]
Ogden, Charles Kay. 1930. Basic English: A General Introduction with Rules and Grammar. London, UK: Treber.Google Scholar
Reuther, Ursula. 2003. “Two in One – Can it Work? Readability and Translatability by Means of Controlled Language.” Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications: 124–132.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1998. Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-century America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2005. “English as a Lingua Franca.” ELT Journal, 591: 339–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Victoria. 2006. “A ‘more Revolutionary’ Web.” December 11, 2017, [URL]
Vettorel, Paola. 2015. “World English and English as a Lingua Franca: Implications for Teacher Education and ELT.” Iperstoria, 61: 229–244.Google Scholar
Zou, Jiang You. 2016. “Does ‘Billion Translation Requirements’ Exist?”. April 11, 2018, [URL]
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

O’Hagan, Minako, Julie McDonough Dolmaya & Hendrik J. Kockaert
2019. Pandemic, localization and change of guard. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization 6:2 ► pp. 69 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.