Is machine translation ready yet?
Published online: 6 July 2010
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.22.1.02gar
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.22.1.02gar
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.
Résumé
L’option par défaut de la Google Translator Toolkit (GTT), publiée en juin 2009, prévoit de préremplir au moyen de la traduction automatique tous les segments pour lesquels un non match a été retourné par les mémoires de traduction. Afin de vérifier si une telle approche est en effet susceptible de profiter au traducteur/à la qualité de la traduction, nous avons conçu et réalisé des tests dans lesquels des traducteurs en formation ont utilisé la GTT dans des traductions de l’anglais en le chinois, soit à partir du seul texte source, soit à partir de segments vides sélectionnés par la GTT selon les instructions prévues. Les traductions ont été chronométrées, et leur qualité évaluée par des marqueurs indépendants expérimentés, suivant les critères d’essai australiens (NAATI). Nos résultats montrent que, alors que les différences temporelles ne sont pas significatives, la traduction automatique sélective par segments a été évaluée de manière plus favorable dans trente-trois cas sur le total des cinquante-six. Ce qui indique que, au moins dans des tâches particulières et pour certaines combinaisons de langue données, traduire avec le secours de la relecture par traduction automatique peut être avantageux.
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 (13)
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.
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. 2009. July 24. The Tool Kit, 9-7-145. [URL]. Visited February2010.
Cited by (51)
Cited by 51 other publications
Geng, Xiaolong
Lesznyák, Márta, Mária Bakti & Eszter Sermann
Quinci, Carla
Torres-Martínez, Sergio
Tosun, Sümeyra
Huang, Jie & Jianhua Wang
Kasperė, Ramunė, Jurgita Motiejūnienė, Irena Patasienė, Martynas Patašius & Jolita Horbačauskienė
Latorraca, Rossella
Mohsen, Mohammed Ali, Sultan Althebi & Mohammed Albahooth
Sun, Juan, Zhi Lu, Isabel Lacruz, Lijun Ma, Lin Fan, Xiuhua Huang & Bo Zhou
2023. 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.
Yu, Zhan & Ying Lu
Dede, Volkan & Elena Antonova-ünlü
He, Shaobin, Yunhan Hao, Shijie Liu, Huidan Liu & Huadong Li
Liu, Kanglong, Ho Ling Kwok, Jianwen Liu & Andrew K.F. Cheung
Kasperė, Ramunė, Jolita Horbačauskienė, Jurgita Motiejūnienė, Vilmantė Liubinienė, Irena Patašienė & Martynas Patašius
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.
Akbari Motlaq, Mohamad Djavad & Tengku Sepora Tengku Mahadi
Yang, Yanxia & Xiangling Wang
Killman, Jeffrey
2018. Translating the same text twice. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization 5:2 ► pp. 114 ff.
Killman, Jeffrey
Killman, Jeffrey
2023. Machine translation and legal terminology. In Handbook of Terminology [Handbook of Terminology, 3], ► pp. 485 ff.
Killman, Jeffrey
O’Brien, Sharon, Michel Simard & Marie-Josée Goulet
Sabbah, Nadia & Reem Alsalem
Vandepitte, Sonia & Els Lefever
Angermeyer, Philipp Sebastian
Daems, Joke, Sonia Vandepitte, Robert J. Hartsuiker & Lieve Macken
Guerberof, Ana
2017. Quality is in the eyes of the reviewer. In Translation in Transition [Benjamins Translation Library, 133], ► pp. 187 ff.
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.
Liang, Linxin & Mingwu Xu
Shih, Chung-ling
Temizöz, Ö.
Groves, Michael & Klaus Mundt
Taylor, Rachel M., Nicola Crichton, Beki Moult & Faith Gibson
Yamada, Masaru
Yamada, Masaru
2023. Post-editing and a sustainable future for translators. In Translation in Transition [American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, XX], ► pp. 39 ff.
Flanagan, Marian & Tina Paulsen Christensen
Huangfu, Wei & Yushan Zhao
Kenny, Dorothy & Stephen Doherty
O’Brien, Sharon & Michel Simard
Kazemzadeh, Ahmad Ali
Teixeira, Carlos S. C.
Koby, Geoffrey S.
Garcia, Ignacio
Garcia, Ignacio & María Isabel Pena
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.
