Article published In: The Journal of Internationalization and Localization
Vol. 1 (2009) ► pp.40–59
How to treat GUI Options in IT Technical Texts for Authoring and Machine Translation
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 26 May 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/jial.1.02rot
https://doi.org/10.1075/jial.1.02rot
This paper focuses on one aspect of controlled authoring in a localization and Machine-Translation context: the treatment of GUI options, which abound in the procedural sections of IT technical documentation. GUI options are technical terms that refer to the Software User Interface. The length and complexity of GUI options is a major problem for numerous NLP tasks, including MT. GUI options which have not been identified by NLP applications typically lead to erroneous analyses of sentences. However, few authors have focused on the identification and tagging of GUI options in IT documentation. This paper delineates an approach based on a controlled language checker that benefits both the human authoring process and Machine Translation.
References (10)
Bernth, A., & Gdaniec, C. (2001). MTranslatability. Machine Translation, 16(3), 175-218. TSB
Bredenkamp, A., Crysmann, B., & Petrea, M. (2000). Looking for Errors: A Declarative Formalism for Resource-Adaptive Language Checking. In
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (Greece)
, Athens (pp. 667-673).
Habert, B., Adda, G., Adda-Decker, M., Boula de Marëuil, P., Ferrari, S., Ferret, O., et al. (1998). Towards Tokenization Evaluation.
First International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'98)
, Grenada, Spain, 427-431.
Nyberg, E., Mitamura, T., & Huijsen, W-O. (2003). Controlled Language for Authoring and Translation. In H. Somers (Ed.), Computers and Translation: A Translator’s Guide. (pp. 71-110) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. TSB
Rychtyckyj, N. (2002). An Assessment of Machine Translation for Vehicle Assembly Process Planning at Ford Motor Company. In S. Richardson (Ed.) Machine translation: from Research to Real Users: Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, AMTA 2002 (USA), Tiburon, CA (LNAI 2499), (pp. 207-215.). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. TSB
Roturier, J. (2006). An Investigation into the Impact of Controlled English Rules on the Comprehensibility, Usefulness, and Acceptability of Machine-Translated Technical Documentation for French and German Users. Unpublished PhD thesis, Dublin City University, Ireland.
Senellart, P., & Senellart, J. (2005, November). SYSTRAN Translation Stylesheets: Machine Translation driven by XSLT. In
Proceedings XML Conference & Exposition (USA)
, Atlanta.
Senellart, J., Plitt, M., Bailly, C., & Cardoso, F. (2001, September). Resource alignment for machine translation or implicit transfer. In
MT Summit VIII: Machine Translation in the Information Age: Proceedings (Spain)
, Santiago de Compostela (pp. 317-323).
Takako, A., Schwartz, L., King, R., Corston-Oliver, M., & Lozano, C. (2007, September). Impact of controlled language on translation quality and post-editing in a statistical machine translation environment. In
MT Summit XI (Denmark)
, Copenhagen (pp.1-7). TSB
Walsh, N., & Muellner, L. (2006). DocBook: The Definitive Guide. O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. Available online at [URL]
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Moodley, Maglin & Reuben Dlamini
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.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 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.