Article published In:
TargetVol. 22:1 (2010) ► pp.7–21
Is machine translation ready yet?
The default option of the Google Translator Toolkit (GTT), released in June 2009, is to “pre-fill with machine translation” all segments for which a ‘no match’ has been returned by the memories, while the Settings window clearly advises that “[m]ost users should not modify this”. To confirm whether this approach indeed benefits translators and translation quality, we designed and performed tests whereby trainee translators used the GTT to translate passages from English into Chinese either entirely from the source text, or after seeding of empty segments by the Google Translate engine as recommended. The translations were timed, and their quality assessed by independent experienced markers following Australian NAATI test criteria. Our results show that, while time differences were not significant, the machine translation seeded passages were more favourably assessed by the markers in thirty three of fifty six cases. This indicates that, at least for certain tasks and language combinations—and against the received wisdom of translation professionals and translator trainers—translating by proofreading machine translation may be advantageous.
Keywords: machine translation, translation memory, web-based translation, translation quality, post-editing, proofreading machine translation
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Background
- 3.Test design
- 4.Analysis of results
- 4.1Time
- 4.2Quality
- 4.3Preference
- 5.Relevance of findings
- 6.Long view
- Acknowledgements
-
References
References
Allen, Jeff
2003 “Post-editing”. Harold Somers ed. Computers and Translation: A Translator’s Guide. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 297–317. 
Bowker, Lynne, and Melissa Ehgoetz
2007 “Exploring User Acceptance of Machine Translation Output: A Recipient Evaluation”. Dorothy Kenny and Kyongjoo Ryou (eds.) Across Boundaries: International Perspectives on Translation. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 209–224.
Champollion, Yves
2001 “Machine translation and the future of the translation industry”. Translation Journal 5:1.
De Palma, Donald A and Nataly Kelly
2008 “Translation of, for, and by the People”. Common Sense Advisory Report. [URL]Visited February2010.
Desilets, Alain, Lucas Gonzalez, Sebastien Paquet, Marta Stojanovic
2006 “Translation the Wiki Way.” WikiSym’06, August 21–23, Odense, Denmark. 19–31.
Dillinger, Mike, and Laurie Gerber
2009, January. “Success with Machine Translation. Automating Knowledge-base Translation, Part 1”. Clientside News. 10–11.
Fiederer, Rebecca, and Sharon O’Brien
2009 “Quality and Machine Translation: A realistic objective?” The Journal of Specialised Translation 11. 52–72.
Guerberof, Ana
2009 Productivity and quality in the post-editing of outputs from translation memories and machine translation. Localisation Focus 7:1. 11–21.
Lopez, Adam
2008 “Statistical Machine Translation”. AMC Computing Surveys 40:3. 8:1–8:49.
O’Brien, Sharon
2006 “Eye-Tracking and Translation Memory Matches”. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 14:3. 185–204.
Pym, Anthony
2009 “Using process studies in translator training: self-discovery through lousy experiments”. [URL] Visited February 2010.
SDL Research 2008 “Trends in automated translation in today’s global business”. White Paper. [URL]. Visited February 2010.
Zetzsche, Jost
Cited by
Cited by 47 other publications
Akbari Motlaq, Mohamad Djavad & Tengku Sepora Tengku Mahadi
2020. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF USING MACHINE TRANSLATION IN TRANSLATION PEDAGOGY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF INSTRUCTORS AND LEARNERS. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews 8:4 ► pp. 121 ff. 
Angermeyer, Philipp Sebastian
2017. Controlling Roma refugees with ‘Google-Hungarian’: Indexing deviance, contempt, and belonging in Toronto's linguistic landscape. Language in Society 46:2 ► pp. 159 ff.
Daems, Joke, Sonia Vandepitte, Robert J. Hartsuiker & Lieve Macken
2017. Translation Methods and Experience: A Comparative Analysis of Human Translation and Post-editing with Students and Professional Translators. Meta 62:2 ► pp. 245 ff.
DEDE, Volkan & Elena ANTONOVA-ÜNLÜ
2022. Does a Formal Post-editing Training Affect the Performance of Novice Post-editors? An Experimental Study. Cankaya University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 16:2 ► pp. 131 ff.
Flanagan, Marian & 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 ► pp. 257 ff.
Garcia, Ignacio
2011. Translating by post-editing: is it the way forward?. Machine Translation 25:3 ► pp. 217 ff.
Garcia, Ignacio & María Isabel Pena
2011. Machine translation-assisted language learning: writing for beginners. Computer Assisted Language Learning 24:5 ► pp. 471 ff.
Groves, Michael & Klaus Mundt
2015. Friend or foe? Google Translate in language for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes 37 ► pp. 112 ff.
Guerberof, Ana
2017. Chapter 7. Quality is in the eyes of the reviewer. In Translation in Transition [Benjamins Translation Library, 133], ► pp. 188 ff.
He, Shaobin, Yunhan Hao, Shijie Liu, Huidan Liu & Huadong Li
2022. Research on translation technology teaching in Chinese publications and in international English-language publications (1999-2020): a bibliometric analysis. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 16:3 ► pp. 275 ff.
Huang, Jie & Jianhua Wang
2023. Post-editing machine translated subtitles: examining the effects of non-verbal input on student translators’ effort. Perspectives 31:4 ► pp. 620 ff.
Huangfu, Wei & Yushan Zhao
2014. A Corpus-based Machine Translation Method of Term Extraction in LSP Texts. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 4:1
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A.
2016. What is (not) web localization in translation studies. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization 3:1 ► pp. 38 ff.
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A.
2018. Crowdsourcing and Translation Quality: Novel Approaches in the Language Industry and Translation Studies. In Translation Quality Assessment [Machine Translation: Technologies and Applications, 1], ► pp. 69 ff.
Kasperė, Ramunė, Jolita Horbačauskienė, Jurgita Motiejūnienė, Vilmantė Liubinienė, Irena Patašienė & Martynas Patašius
2021. Towards Sustainable Use of Machine Translation: Usability and Perceived Quality from the End-User Perspective. Sustainability 13:23 ► pp. 13430 ff.
Kasperė, Ramunė, Jurgita Motiejūnienė, Irena Patasienė, Martynas Patašius & Jolita Horbačauskienė
2023. Is machine translation a dim technology for its users? An eye tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology 14
Kazemzadeh, Ahmad Ali
2013. The effect of computer-assisted translation on L2 learners’ mastery of writing. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning 3:3
Kenny, Dorothy & Stephen Doherty
2014. Statistical machine translation in the translation curriculum: overcoming obstacles and empowering translators. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8:2 ► pp. 276 ff.
Killman, Jeffrey
2018. Translating the same text twice. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization 5:2 ► pp. 114 ff.
Killman, Jeffrey
2023. Rendering Morphosyntactic Features of Legal Spanish Judgments Using Neural and Statistical Machine Translation. In New Advances in Legal Translation and Interpreting [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 221 ff.
Killman, Jeffrey
2023. Machine translation and legal terminology. In Handbook of Terminology [Handbook of Terminology, 3], ► pp. 485 ff.
Koby, Geoffrey S.
2012. Post‐Editing of Machine Translation. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics,
Latorraca, Rossella
2023. Lost in post-editing. An exploratory study on translation trainees’ perceived EN>IT post-editing vs. translation performance. Ampersand 11 ► pp. 100144 ff.
Liang, Linxin & Mingwu Xu
2016. A Bibliometric Analysis of International Translation Studies: Based on Relevant Data (2009–2013). Translation Review 94:1 ► pp. 52 ff.
Liu, Kanglong, Ho Ling Kwok, Jianwen Liu & Andrew K.F. Cheung
2022. Sustainability and Influence of Machine Translation: Perceptions and Attitudes of Translation Instructors and Learners in Hong Kong. Sustainability 14:11 ► pp. 6399 ff.
Mohsen, Mohammed Ali, Sultan Althebi & Mohammed Albahooth
2023. A scientometric study of three decades of machine translation research: Trending issues, hotspot research, and co-citation analysis. Cogent Arts & Humanities 10:1
O’Brien, Sharon & Michel Simard
2014. Introduction to special issue on post-editing. Machine Translation 28:3-4 ► pp. 159 ff.
O’Brien, Sharon, Michel Simard & Marie-Josée Goulet
2018. Machine Translation and Self-post-editing for Academic Writing Support: Quality Explorations. In Translation Quality Assessment [Machine Translation: Technologies and Applications, 1], ► pp. 237 ff.
Pym, Anthony
2014. Translation Skill-Sets in a Machine-Translation Age. Meta 58:3 ► pp. 487 ff.
Sabbah, Nadia & Reem Alsalem
2018. Female Translation Students' Knowledge and Use of Online Dictionaries and Terminology Data Banks: A Case Study. SSRN Electronic Journal
Shih, Chung-ling
2016. A New Scenario of Machine Translation: Dynamic Contextual Effects with Diverse Paratextual Application. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 6:6 ► pp. 1183 ff.
Sun, Juan, Zhi Lu, Isabel Lacruz, Lijun Ma, Lin Fan, Xiuhua Huang & Bo Zhou
2023. Chapter 4. An eye-tracking study of productivity and effort in Chinese-to-English translation and post-editing. In Translation in Transition [American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, XX], ► pp. 57 ff.
Taylor, Rachel M., Nicola Crichton, Beki Moult & Faith Gibson
2015. A prospective observational study of machine translation software to overcome the challenge of including ethnic diversity in healthcare research. Nursing Open 2:1 ► pp. 14 ff.
Teixeira, Carlos S. C.
2013. Multilingual Systems, Translation Technology and Their Impact on the Translator’s Profession. In Where Humans Meet Machines, ► pp. 299 ff.
Temizöz, Ö.
2016. Postediting machine translation output: subject-matter experts versus professional translators. Perspectives 24:4 ► pp. 646 ff.
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
2011. Translation prototype and how to exploit it in translator education. Across Languages and Cultures 12:2 ► pp. 157 ff.
Torres-Martínez, Sergio
2024.
Semiosic Translation: a Bayesian-heuristic theory of translation and translating. Language and Semiotic Studies 0:0
Tosun, Sümeyra
2024. Machine translation: Turkish–English bilingual speakers’ accuracy detection of evidentiality and preference of MT. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 9:1
Vandepitte, Sonia & Els Lefever
2018. Translation as a multilingual activity in the digital era. Revue française de linguistique appliquée Vol. XXIII:2 ► pp. 59 ff.
Yamada, Masaru
2015. Can college students be post-editors? An investigation into employing language learners in machine translation plus post-editing settings. Machine Translation 29:1 ► pp. 49 ff.
Yamada, Masaru
2023. Chapter 3. Post-editing and a sustainable future for translators. In Translation in Transition [American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, XX], ► pp. 39 ff.
Yang, Yanxia & Xiangling Wang
2019. Modeling the intention to use machine translation for student translators: An extension of Technology Acceptance Model. Computers & Education 133 ► pp. 116 ff.
Yang, Yanxia, Xiangling Wang & Qingqing Yuan
2021. Measuring the usability of machine translation in the classroom context. Translation and Interpreting Studies 16:1 ► pp. 101 ff.
Yu, Zhan & Ying Lu
2023. Post-editing Performance of English-Major Undergraduates in China: A Case Study of C-E Translation with Pedagogical Reflections. In Computer Science and Education [Communications in Computer and Information Science, 1812], ► pp. 408 ff.
[no author supplied]
2015. Information and Communication Technology and Language Education. In Intelligent Web-Based English Instruction in Middle Schools [Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design, ], ► pp. 1 ff.
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 april 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.