Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 3:1 (2020) ► pp.100–121

Raw machine translation use by patent professionals

A case of distributed cognition

| Tampere University
This article examines the use of raw, unedited machine-translated texts by patent professionals using the framework of distributed cognition. The goals of the study were to evaluate whether the concept of distributed cognition is a useful theoretical lens for examining and explaining raw MT reception, and to contribute to our knowledge of raw MT use through an analysis of a real-life use case. The study revealed that patent professionals often rely on a large network of artifacts and people to help them in the task of understanding raw MT, and therefore the concept of distributed cognition was applicable and useful. The study also contributed new knowledge to our overall understanding of the use of raw MT.
Keywords: raw machine translation, machine translation gisting, patent machine translation, machine translation users, distributed cognition, machine translation for assimilation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Related work
    • 2.1Distributed cognition and translation
    • 2.2Raw MT users
  • 3.Methods
  • 4.Introduction to the work of patent professionals
    • 4.1Texts and processes
    • 4.2MT for patents
    • 4.3Tool environment
  • 5.Distributed cognition: Understanding through interaction with network
    • 5.1Original source document
    • 5.2Inventors and technical experts
    • 5.3Alternative machine translation
    • 5.4Larger network of stakeholders
    • 5.5Meaning-making through negotiation on a higher level
  • 6.Conclusions and future research
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00036.nur
References (62)
References
Alberts, Doreen, Cynthia Barcelon Yang, Ken Koubek, Suzanne Robins, Matthew Rodgers, Edlyn Simmons, and Dominic DeMarco. 2017. “Introduction to Patent Searching.” In Current Challenges in Patent Information Retrieval. 2nd ed. Edited by M. Lupu, K. Mayer, N. Kando and A. J. Trippe, 3–45. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Battistelli, Benoît. 2012. “Patent Translate Service Goes Live!” [URL] Accessed 5 July 2019.
Bowker, Lynne, and Jairo Buitrago Ciro. 2019. Machine Translation and Global Research: Towards improved machine translation literacy in the scholarly community. Bingley, UK: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowker, Lynne, and Melissa Ehgoetz. 2007. “Exploring User Acceptance of Machine Translation Output: A recipient evaluation.” In Across Boundaries: International perspectives on Translation Studies. Edited by D. Kenny and K. Ryou, 209–224. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Successful Qualitative Research: A practical guide for beginners. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
Burgett, Will. 2015. “Unmoderated Remote Usability Testing of Machine Translation Content.” TAUS Review of Language Business and Technology IV1: 30–37.Google Scholar
Castilho, Sheila, Fabio Alves, Sharon O’Brien, and Morgan O’Brien. 2014. “Does Post-Editing Increase Usability? A study with Brazilian Portuguese as target language.” In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, 183–190. [URL]
Castilho, Sheila, and Sharon O’Brien. 2017. “Acceptability of Machine-Translated Content: A multi-language evaluation by translators and end-users.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 161: 120–136.Google Scholar
Cavalier, Tim. 2001. “Perspectives on Machine Translation of Patent Information.” World Patent Information 23 (4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Andy, and David Chalmers. 1998. “The Extended Mind.” Analysis 4 (1): 7–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doherty, Stephen, and Sharon O’Brien. 2009. “Can MT Output be Evaluated through Eye Tracking?” In Proceedings of the 12th Machine Translation Summit, 1–8. [URL]
. 2014. “Assessing the Usability of Raw Machine Translated Output: A user-centered study using eye tracking.” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 301: 40–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen. 2019. “Ergonomics and the Translation Process.” Slovo.Ru: Baltijskij Accent 10 (1): 37–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
EPO: European Patent Office. 2018. How to Get a European Patent: Guide for applicants. Vienna: European Patent Office Vienna.Google Scholar
Fuji, Masaru, N. Hatanaka, E. Ito, S. Kamei, H. Kumai, T. Sukehiro, T. Yoshimi, and Hitoshi Isahara. 2001. “Evaluation Method for Determining Groups of Users Who Find MT “Useful”. In Proceedings of the 8th Machine Translation Summit, 11–21. [URL]
Gao, Ge, Hao-Chuan Wang, Dan Cosley, and Susan R. Fussell. 2013. “Same Translation but Different Experience: The effects of highlighting on machine-translated conversations.” In CHI ‘13: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 449–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gao, Ge, Bin Xu, David Hau, Zheng Yao, Dan Cosley, and Susan R. Fussell. 2015. “Two is Better than One: Improving multilingual collaboration by giving two machine translation outputs.” In CSCW ‘15: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 852–863. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaspari, Federico. 2004. “Online MT Services and Real Users’ Needs: An empirical usability evaluation.” In Machine Translation: From real users to research—6th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, AMTA 2014, 74–85. [URL]
. 2006. “The Added Value of Free Online MT Services: Confidence boosters for linguistically-challenged Internet users, a case study for the language pair Italian-English.” In Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation of the Americas, 46–55. [URL]
. 2007. The Role of Online MT in Webpage Translation. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Henisz-Dostert, Bozena. 1979. “Users’ Evaluation of Machine Translation.” In Machine Translation. Edited by W. Winter, 149–244. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ishida, Toru. 2016. “Intercultural Collaboration and Support Systems: A brief history.” In PRIMA 2016: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems—19th Annual Conference, 3–19. . DOI logo
Joho, Hideo, Leif Azzopardi, and Wim Vandervauwheded. 2010. “A Survey of Patent Users: An analysis of tasks, behavior, search functionality and system requirements.” In Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Information Interaction in Context: IIiX ’10, 13–24. DOI logo
Jolley, Jason R., and Luciane Maimone. 2015. “Free Online Machine Translation: Use and perceptions by Spanish students and instructors.” In Learn Languages, Explore Cultures, Transform Lives. Edited by A. J. Moeller, 181–200. Minneapolis, MN: Central States Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.Google Scholar
List, Jane. 2012. “Review of Machine Translation in Patents—Implications for search.” World Patent Information 34 (3): 193–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Nancy Xiuzhi, and Matthew Watts. 2019. “Mobile Translation Experience: Current state and future directions.” In Impacts of Mobile use and Experience on Contemporary Society. Edited by X. Xu, 193–212. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marzouk, Shaimaa, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra. 2019. “Evaluation of the Impact of Controlled Language on Neural Machine Translation Compared to Other MT Architectures.” Machine Translation 33 (1–2): 179–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moorkens, Joss. 2017. “Under Pressure: Translation in times of austerity.” Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 25 (3): 464–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morland, D. Verne. 2002. Nutzlos, Bien Pratique, Or Muy Util? Business users speak out on the value of pure machine translation. Dayton, OH: NCR Corporation.Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2010. “On paradigms and cognitive translatology. In Translation and Cognition. Edited by G. Shreve & E. Angelone, 169–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Looking Toward the Future of Cognitive Translation Studies.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited by J. W. Schwieter and A. Ferreira, 555–572. London: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nitzke, Jean, Silvia Hansen–Schirra, and Carmen Canfora. 2019. “Risk Management and Post-Editing Competence.” The Journal of Specialised Translation (311): 239–259.Google Scholar
Nurminen, Mary. 2016. “Machine Translation-Mediated Interviewing in Qualitative Research: A pilot project.” New Horizons in Translation Research and Education 41: 66–84.Google Scholar
Nurminen, Mary, and Niko Papula. 2018. “Gist MT Users: A snapshot of the use and users of one online MT tool.” Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, 199–208. [URL]
Nurminen, Mary. 2019. “Decision-making, Risk, and Gist Machine Translation in the Work of Patent Professionals.” Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Patent and Scientific Literature Translation, 32–42. [URL]
Nuutila, Pertti. 2005. Rough Machine Translation in the Communication Process. Licentiate thesis, University of Tampere.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon. 2010. “Controlled Language and Readability.” In Translation and Cognition. Edited by G. M. Shreve and E. Angelone, 143–165. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Machine Translation and Cognition.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited by J. W. Schwieter and A. Ferreira, 313–331. London: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oesch, Rainer, Heli Pihlajamaa, and Sami Sunila. 2014. Patenttioikeus [Patent Law]. 3rd edition. Helsinki: Talentum.Google Scholar
Ogura, Kentaro, Yoshihiko Hayashi, Saeko Nomura, and Toru Ishida. 2004. “User Adaptation in MT-Mediated Communication.” The First International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (IJCNLP-04), 596–601.Google Scholar
Pituxcoosuuvarn, Mondheera, Toru Ishida, Naomi Yamashita, Toshiyuki Takasaki, and Yumiko Mori. 2018. “Machine Translation Usage in a Children’s Workshop.” CollabTech 2018: Collaboration Technologies and Social Computing: 10th International Conference, Proceedings, 59–73. Edited by T. Yoshino et al., 59–73. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Springer.Google Scholar
Pouliquen, Bruno. 2016. Practical use of Machine Translation in International Organizations. Varanasi, India: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).Google Scholar
PRH: Patentti- ja rekisterihallitus [Finnish Patent and Registration Office]. 2018. Patenttiopas [Patent Guide]. Helsinki: Patentti- ja rekisterihallitus (PRH).Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony, and Kayo Matsushita. 2018. “Risk Mitigation in Translator Decisions.” Across Languages and Cultures 19 (1): 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Translation Process Research as Interaction Research: From mental to socio-cognitive processes.” In Minding Translation. Edited by R. Muñoz, 331–353. MonTI, special issue 1. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
Rossi, Laura, and Dion Wiggins. 2013. “Applicability and Application of Machine Translation Quality Metrics in the Patent Field.” World Patent Information 35 (2): 115–125.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Schwieter, John W., and Aline Ferreira, eds. 2017. The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M., and Erik Angelone, eds. 2010. Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Ross. 2003. “Overview of PwC/Sytranet On-Line MT Facility.” In Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth International Conference on Translating and the Computer. [URL]
Stewart, Osamuyimen, David Lubensky, Scott Macdonald, and Julie Marcotte. 2010. “Using Machine Translation for the Localization of Electronic Support Content: Evaluating end-user satisfaction.” In Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas. [URL]
Tinsley, John, Alexandru Ceausu, Jian Zhang, Heidi Depraetere, and Joeri Van de Walle. 2012. “IPTranslator: Facilitating patent search with machine translation.” 28 October–1 November 2012.Google Scholar
Turovsky, Barak. 2016. Google Translate Blog: Ten years of Google Translate. [URL]. Accessed 30 June 2016.
Wang, Dan. 2009. “Chinese to English Automatic Patent Machine Translation at SIPO.” World Patent Information 31 (2): 137–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Way, Andy. 2013. “Traditional and Emerging Use-Cases for Machine Translation.” Paper presented at Translating and the Computer 34. [URL]
. 2018. “Quality Expectations of Machine Translation.” In Translation Quality Assessment: From principles to practice. Edited by J. Moorkens, S. Castilho, F. Gaspari and S. Doherty, 159–178. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization. 2018. World Intellectual Property Indicators 2018. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization.Google Scholar
Xu, Bin, Ge Gao, Susan R. Fussell, and Dan Cosley. 2014. “Improving Machine Translation by Showing Two Outputs.” In Chi ’14: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3743–3746. [URL]
Yamashita, Naomi, Rieko Inaba, Hideaki Kuzuoka, and Toru Ishida. 2009. “Difficulties in Establishing Common Ground in Multiparty Groups using Machine Translation.” In CHI ’09: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 679–688. [URL]
Yang, Jin, and Elke Lange. 2003. “Going Live on the Internet.” In Computers and Translation: A translator’s guide. Edited by H. Somers, 191–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yasouka, Mika, and Pernille Bjorn. 2011. “Machine Translation Effects on Communication: What makes it difficult to communicate through machine translation?” In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Culture and Computing, 110–115.Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Hirvonen, Maija
2024. Shared cognition in the translation process: Information processing and meaning production as interactive accomplishments. Translation Studies ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
O’Brien, Sharon
2024. Human-Centered augmented translation: against antagonistic dualisms. Perspectives 32:3 ► pp. 391 ff. DOI logo
Sannholm, Raphael & Hanna Risku
2024. Situated minds and distributed systems in translation. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 36:2 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Jieun & Hyoeun Choi
2023. A quality assessment of Korean–English patent machine translation. FORUM. Revue internationale d’interprétation et de traduction / International Journal of Interpretation and Translation 21:2 ► pp. 236 ff. DOI logo
Lewis, William D. & Jan Niehues
2023. Chapter 10. Automatic speech translation in the classroom and lecture setting. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 241 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2023. Chapter 8. Embedding, extending, and distributing interpreter cognition with technology. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
Dorst, Aletta G., Susana Valdez & Heather Bouman
2022. Machine translation in the multilingual classroom. Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 8:1 ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Korhonen, Annamari
2022. When and how to revise?. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5:2 ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Korhonen, Annamari & Maija Hirvonen
2021. Joint creative process in translation. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:2 ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
2021. Situated cognition. In Handbook of Translation Studies [Handbook of Translation Studies, 5], ► pp. 208 ff. DOI logo
O’Brien, Sharon & Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow
2020. MT Literacy—A cognitive view. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 3:2 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 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.