Cover not available

Article published In: FORUM
Vol. 18:1 (2020) ► pp.26–44

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Master’s students’ post-editing perception and strategies

Exploratory study

 | University of Mons
Published online: 16 June 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.19014.pir
Abstract
The present article aims at presenting the results of an exploratory post-editing process study carried out in a Belgian university, the University of Mons. For this experiment, 64 final-year translation students with no post-editing experience post-edited from English into French parts of five different institutional texts from the Directorate-General for Translation (DGT) of the European Commission. They were additionally asked to fill in a prospective questionnaire and a retrospective one, related to their post-editing perception and strategies. Four students took part in the experiment on a separate computer equipped with an eye-tracking device, so that eye-tracking data could be collected and compared with these students’ questionnaires. We found that results related to eye-tracking data correlate well with previous research, and that students’ perceptions of post-editing depend on each university’s particular context.
Résumé
Cet article a pour objectif de présenter les résultats d’une étude exploratoire du processus de post-édition menée au sein de l’Université de Mons (Belgique). Pour ce faire, 64 étudiants de dernière année de Master en traduction sans expérience de post-édition ont post-édité, de l’anglais vers le français, des fragments de cinq textes institutionnels provenant de la Direction générale de la traduction (DGT) de la Commission européenne. Ils ont également rempli un questionnaire antérieur et un questionnaire postérieur, concernant tous deux leur perception de la post-édition, ainsi que les stratégies qu’ils ont mises en œuvre. Quatre étudiants ont pris part à l’expérience sur un ordinateur séparé équipé d’un dispositif d’oculométrie, ce qui nous a permis de collecter des données oculométriques et de les comparer aux réponses fournies dans leurs questionnaires. Au terme de cette étude exploratoire, nous avons conclu que les données oculométriques corroborent les tendances observées dans les études antérieures réalisées en la matière, et que les perceptions qu’ont les étudiants de la post-édition dépendent du contexte particulier de chaque université.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Research into post-editing process and perceptions
    • 2.1Students’ perception of post-editing practice
    • 2.2PE cognitive effort through the analysis of eye-tracking data
  • 3.Objectives
  • 4.Description of the experiment and methodology
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Chosen texts
    • 4.3Questionnaires
    • 4.4Eye-tracking
  • 5.Data and discussion
    • 5.1Questionnaires
      • 5.1.1Pre-test questionnaire
      • 5.1.2Retrospective questionnaire
    • 5.2Eye-Tracking and strategies
      • 5.2.1Results obtained through data analysis
      • 5.2.2Implications for future PE classes
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
References (25)
References
Cadwell, Patrick, Sheila Castilho, Sharon O’Brien, and Linda Mitchell. 2016. “Human Factors in Machine Translation and Post-Editing among Institutional Translators.” Translation Spaces 5 (2): 222–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, Barbara Dragsted, Jakob Elming, Daniel Hardt, and Arnt L. Jakobsen. 2011. “The Process of Post-Editing: a Pilot Study.” Proceedings of the 8th international NLPSC workshop.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, Silke Gutermuth, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra. 2015. “Post-editing machine translation: Efficiency, strategies, and revision processes in professional translation settings.” In Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Aline Ferreira and John W. Schwieter, 145–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DGT-Spanish Language Department. 2010. Manual de revisión. Brussels / Luxembourg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
EMT expert group. 2017. “Competence framework 2017”. European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fiederer, Rebecca, and Sharon O’Brien. 2009. “Quality and Machine Translation: a Realistic Objective?” The Journal of Specialised Translation 111: 52–74.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forcada, Mikel. 2017. “Making Sense of Neural Machine Translation.” Translation Spaces 6 (2): 291–309. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garcia, Ignacio. 2011. “Translating by Post-Editing: Is It the Way Forward?” Machine Translation 251: 217–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guerberof Arenas, Ana. 2009. “Productivity and Quality in the Post-Editing of Outputs from Translation Memories and Machine Translation.” Localisation Focus – The International Journal of Localisation 7 (1): 11–21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jia, Yanfang, Michael Carl, and Xiangling Wang. 2019. “How Does the Post-Editing of Neural Machine Translation Compare with From-Scratch Translation? A Product and Process Study.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 311: 60–86.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koponen, Maarit. 2012. “Comparing Human Perceptions of Post-editing Effort with Post-editing Operations.” Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation: 181–190.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koponen, Maarit, Wilker Aziz, Luciana Ramos, and Lucia Specia. 2012. “Post-Editing Time as a Measure of Cognitive Effort.” Proceedings of the AMTA 2012 Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice: 11–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krings, Hans. 2001. Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-Editing Processes. Kent (Ohio): The Kent State University Press, Kent.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laurian, Anne-Marie. 1984. “Machine Translation : What Type of Post-editing on What Type of Documents for What Type of Users.” Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 22nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: 236–238.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mesa-Lao, Bartolomé. 2014. “Gaze Behaviour on Source Texts: an Exploratory Study Comparing Translation and Post-Editing.” In Post-editing of Machine Translation: Processes and applications, ed. by Sharon O’Brien, Laura Winther Balling, Michael Carl, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia, 219–245. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon. 2002. “Teaching Post-editing: a Proposal for Course Content.” 6th EAMT Workshop – Teaching Machine Translation: 99–106.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robert, Anne-Marie. 2010. “La post-édition : l’avenir incontournable du traducteur  ?” Traduire – Revue française de la traduction 2221: 137–144.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2013). “Vous avez dit post-éditrice ? Quelques éléments d’un parcours personnel.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 191: 29–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossi, Caroline. 2019. “L’apprenti traducteur et la machine : des connaissances aux perceptions de la traduction automatique.” Des mots aux actes 81: 93-105.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
TAUS. 2010. “MT Post-editing Guidelines”. Accessed July 11, 2019 [URL]
Toral, Antonio, Martin Wieling, and Andy Way. 2018. “Post-editing Effort of a Novel With Statistical and Neural Machine Translation”. Frontiers in Digital Humanities 5 (9): 1–11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Valero-Garcés, Carmen. 2018. “Interview with Spanish Language Department. Directorate-General for Translation (DGT) European Commission. José Luis Vega (Head of Department); Alberto Rivas (Quality Officer) and Luis González (Terminologist).” FITISPos International Journal 5 (1): 114–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vieira, Lucas N. 2017. “From Process to Product: Links between Post-Editing Effort and Post-Edited Quality.” In Translation in transition: between cognition, computing and technology, ed. by Arnt L. Jakobsen, and Bartolomé Mesa-Lao, 162–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wagner, Emma. 1985. “Post-Editing SYSTRAN – A Challenge for Commission Translators.” Terminologie et Traduction 31: 1–7.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Robert, Isabelle S.
2025. L’évaluation de la postédition « retour » en contexte d’apprentissage : priorité à la détection des problèmes de traduction. Meta 69:3 ► pp. 758 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Jia
2025. Too Tricky for Rookies? An Enquiry into Novice Translation Students’ Machine Translation Literacy. In Multilingual Education Yearbook 2025 [Multilingual Education Yearbook, ], ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue