Article published In:
Culture and Society[Translation Spaces 5:2] 2016
► pp. 222–243
Human factors in machine translation and post-editing among institutional translators
In September 2015, the ADAPT Centre for Digital Content Technology carried out a focus group study of 70 translators at the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation (DGT). The aim was to better understand the factors involved in the translators’ adoption and non-adoption of machine translation (MT) during their translation tasks. Our analysis showed that, while broadly positive attitudes to MT could be observed, MT was not consistently adopted for all tasks. We argue that ergonomic factors related to a human translator’s needs, abilities, limitations, and overall well-being heavily impacted on participants’ decisions to use MT or not in their tasks. We further claim that it is only by taking into account the special institutional circumstances in which the activity of DGT translation is situated that these ergonomic factors can be fully understood and explained.
References
Barbour, Rosaline
2007 Doing Focus Groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 
Bonet, Josep
2013 Honing Quality in 23 Languages MT @ EC—The Right Foundation. Unpublished DGT intranet report. Accessed May 25, 2015.
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke
2006 “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.
Castilho, Sheila, Sharon O’Brien, Fabio Alves, and Morgan O’Brien
2014 “Does Post-Editing Increase Usability? A Study with Brazilian Portuguese as Target Language.” In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, edited by Marko Tadić, Philipp Koehn, Johann Roturier, and Andy Way, 183–190. Dubrovnik: EAMT.
Cronin, Michael
2013 Translation in the Digital Age. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
DePalma, Donald A., and Benjamin B. Sargent
2013 Transformative Translation. Cambridge: Common Sense Advisory.
DePalma, Donald A., Vijayalaxmi Hegde, Hélène Pielmeier, and Robert G. Stewart
2013 The Language Services Market: 2013. Cambridge: Common Sense Advisory.
Doherty, Stephen, and Sharon O’Brien
2014 “Assessing the Usability of Raw Machine Translated Output: A User-Centered Study Using Eye Tracking.” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 30 (1): 40–51.
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen
2014 “Challenges of Translation Process Research at the Workplace.” MonTI Monographs in Translation and Interpreting Special Issue 11: 355–383.
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Gary Massey
2014 “Translators and Machines: Working Together.” In Proceedings of the XXth World Congress of the International Federation of Translators (Vol. I), edited by Wolfram Baur, Brigitte Eichner, Sylvia Kalina, Norma Keßler, Felix Mayer, and Jeanette Ørsted, 199–207. Berlin: BDÜ.
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Sharon O’Brien
2015 “Ergonomics of the Translation Workplace: Potential for Cognitive Friction.” Translation Spaces 4 (1): 98–118.
Eisele, Andreas
2013 “MT@EC: Serving the Multilingual Needs of the European Commission.” Paper presented at
8th Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation
, Sofia, August 8.
European Commission
2012 Translation Tools and Workflow. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
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), edited by Sharon O’Brien, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia, 60–72. Vancouver: AMTA.
Guerberof Arenas, Ana
2009 “Productivity and Quality in the Post-editing of Outputs from Translation Memories and Machine Translation.” Localisation Focus 7 (1): 11–21.
International Ergonomics Association
Koskinen, Kaisa
2008 Translating Institutions: An Ethnographic Study of EU Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Koskinen, Kaisa, and Minna Ruokonen
Forthcoming. “Love Letters or Hate Mail? Translators’ Affective Responses to Technology.” In Human Issues in Translation Technology edited by Dorothy Kenny Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon Routledge
Kluvanec, Daniel
2013 “The Way Forward with MT@EC in 2014 and Beyond.” Paper presented at
European Parliament Science and Technology Options Assessment
, Brussels, December 3.
2014 “Getting the Right Mix: Approaches to Machine Translation in the European Commission.” In Proceedings of the XXth World Congress of the International Federation of Translators (Vol. I1), edited by Wolfram Baur, Brigitte Eichner, Sylvia Kalina, Norma Keßler, Felix Mayer, and Jeanette Ørsted, 51–57. Berlin: BDÜ.
Koponen, Maarit
2012 “Comparing Human Perceptions of Post-Editing Effort with Post-Editing Operations.” In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, 181–190. New York: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Lagoudaki, Elina
2006 “Translation Memories Survey 2006: Users’ Perceptions around TM Use.” Paper presented at
Translating and the Computer 28
, London, November 16–17.
2008 Expanding the Possibilities of Translation Memory Systems: From the Translator’s Wishlist to the Developer’s Design. PhD Thesis, Imperial College London.
Lavault-Olléon, Élisabeth
2011 “Une introduction à la problématique « Traduction et Ergonomie » [Introducing Translation and Ergonomics].” ILCEA Traduction et Ergonomie. Accessed May 17, 2016. [URL].
Le Blanc, Matthieu
2013 “Translators on Translation Memory (TM): Results of an Ethnographic Study in Three Translation Services and Agencies.” Translation and Interpreting 5 (2): 1–13.
Liamputtong, Pranee
2011 Focus Group Methodology: Principle and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Moorkens, Joss, Sharon O’Brien, Igor A.L. da Silva, Norma B. de Lima Fonseca, and Fabio Alves
2015 “Correlations of Perceived Post-Editing Effort with Measurements of Actual Effort”. Machine Translation 29 (3-4): 267–284.
Moorkens, Joss, and Sharon O’Brien
Forthcoming. “Assessing User Interface Needs of Post-Editors of Machine Translation.” In Human Issues in Translation Technology edited by Dorothy Kenny Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon Routledge
Morgan, David L
1997 Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
O’Brien, Sharon
O’Brien, Sharon, Maureen Enhrensberger-Dow, Marcel Hasler, and Megan Connolly
Submitted. “Irritating CAT Tool Features that Matter to Translators” submitted to Hermes, Journal of Language and Communication, Special Issue on Translation Technology.
Pilos, Spyridon
2014 “MT@EC – The New Machine Translation of the European Commission.” Paper presented at
CEF Information Day
, Luxembourg, January 16.
Plitt, Mirko, and François Masselot
2010 “A Productivity Test of Statistical Machine Translation Post-Editing in a Typical Localisation Context.” The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 931: 7–16.
Pym, Anthony, Alexander Perekrestenko, and Bram Starink
2006 Translation Technology and Its Teaching: (With Much Mention of Localization). Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group, Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
Risku, Hanna
2010 “A Cognitive Scientific View on Technical Communication and Translation: Do Embodiment and Situatedness Really Make a Difference?” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 22 (01): 94–111.
Risku, Hanna, and Florian Windhager
2013 “Extended Translation: A Socio-Cognitive Research Agenda.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 25 (1): 33–45.
Rummel, Dieter
2015 Machine Translation Annual Activity Report 2014. Unpublished DGT intranet report. Accessed May 25, 2015.
Stewart, D. Friedman, and Prem N. Shamdasani
2015 Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Teixeira, Carlos S.C
2014 “Perceived vs. Measured Performance in the Post-Editing of Suggestions from Machine Translation and Translation Memories” In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas: Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (WPTP3), edited by Sharon O’Brien, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia, 450–59. Vancouver: AMTA.
Van den Bergh, Jan, Eva Geurts, Donald Degraen, Mieke Haesen, Iulianna van der Lek-Ciudin, and Karin Coninx
2016 “Recommendations for Translation Environments to Improve Translators’ Workflows.” Paper presented at
Translating and the Computer 38
, London, November 17–18.
Cited by
Cited by 19 other publications
Bi, Shengqin, Andino Maseleno, Xiaohui Yuan & Valentina E. Balas
2020. Intelligent system for English translation using automated knowledge base. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 39:4 ► pp. 5057 ff. 
Biel, Łucja
2022. Translating Legal Texts. In The Cambridge Handbook of Translation, ► pp. 379 ff.
Cadwell, Patrick, Sharon O’Brien & Carlos S. C. Teixeira
2018. Resistance and accommodation: factors for the (non-) adoption of machine translation among professional translators. Perspectives 26:3 ► pp. 301 ff.
Cennamo, Ilaria & Loïc de Faria Pires
2022. Intelligence artificielle et traduction. FORUM. Revue internationale d’interprétation et de traduction / International Journal of Interpretation and Translation 20:2 ► pp. 333 ff.
de Faria Pires, Loïc
2020. Master’s students’ post-editing perception and
strategies. FORUM. Revue internationale d’interprétation et de traduction / International Journal of Interpretation and Translation 18:1 ► pp. 26 ff.
Guerberof-Arenas, Ana & Antonio Toral
2020. The impact of post-editing and machine translation on creativity and reading experience. Translation Spaces 9:2 ► pp. 255 ff.
Kappus, Martin & Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow
2020. The ergonomics of translation tools: understanding when less is actually more. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14:4 ► pp. 386 ff.
Kenny, Dorothy, Joss Moorkens & Félix do Carmo
Moorkens, Joss, Antonio Toral, Sheila Castilho & Andy Way
2018. Translators’ perceptions of literary post-editing using statistical and neural machine translation. Translation Spaces 7:2 ► pp. 240 ff.
Mossop, Brian
2020. Subjective Responses to Translation Memory Policy in the Workplace. TTR 32:1 ► pp. 309 ff.
Nunes Vieira, Lucas & Elisa Alonso
2020. Translating perceptions and managing expectations: an analysis of management and production perspectives on machine translation. Perspectives 28:2 ► pp. 163 ff.
Olohan, Maeve
2022. Translating Technical Texts. In The Cambridge Handbook of Translation, ► pp. 321 ff.
O’Brien, Sharon & Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow
Risku, Hanna, Regina Rogl & Jelena Milosevic
2019. Translation practice in the field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes. In Translation Practice in the Field [Benjamins Current Topics, 105], ► pp. 1 ff.
Sánchez-Gijón, Pilar, Joss Moorkens & Andy Way
2019. Post-editing neural machine translation versus translation memory segments. Machine Translation 33:1-2 ► pp. 31 ff.
Tang, Jun
2020. Graduate-level career preparation for Chinese translation students: a perspective of educational ergonomics. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14:4 ► pp. 405 ff.
van Egdom, Gys-Walt, Patrick Cadwell, Hendrik Kockaert & Winibert Segers
2020. A turn to ergonomics in translator and interpreter training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14:4 ► pp. 363 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.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 february 2023. 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.