Article published In: Approaches to Machine Translation
Edited by Mahdieh Fakhar, Monica Vilhelm and Paz Díez-Arcón
[Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 11:1] 2025
► pp. 48–64
Machine translation of tourism reviews
Quality assessment and localization
Published online: 7 January 2025
https://doi.org/10.1075/ttmc.00153.ros
https://doi.org/10.1075/ttmc.00153.ros
Abstract
Machine translation (MT) has surpassed all quality expectations and its use has increased exponentially in recent
years (Forcada, Mikel L. 2017. “Making Sense of Neural Machine
Translation.” Translation
Spaces 6(2): 291–309. ; Sánchez-Gijón, Pilar, Joss Moorkens, and Andy Way. 2019. “Post-Editing
Neural Machine Translation Versus Translation Memory Segments.” Machine
Translation 33(2): 31–59. ). One of the most frequent MT applications is the translation of user-generated content (UGC) and, more
specifically, reviews on tourism portals such as Tripadvisor. Several authors agree that the degree of trust and credibility of a
review, as the most important characteristics of UGC, depends largely on the perceived naturalness and authenticity of its writing
(Pollach, Irene. 2006. “Electronic
Word of Mouth: A Genre Analysis of Product Reviews on Consumer Opinion Web
Sites.” In Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, ed. by Ralph Sprague Jr., Vol. 31, 1530–1605. Washington D.C.: IEEE Computer Society. [URL]. ; Schemmann, Brita. 2011. “A
Classification of Presentation Forms of Travel and Tourism-Related Online Consumer
Reviews.” e-Review of Tourism
Research 9 (2): 14–24. [URL]; . 2014. ““Usually
Not One to Complain But…”: Constructing Identities in User-Generated Online
Reviews.” In The Language of Social Media, ed.
by Caroline Tagg, and Philip Seargeant, 65–90. London: Palgrave Macmillan. ). The review’s influence on the product’s reputation and on the purchase
decision-making of future users has been fully demonstrated. Since review platforms make reviews available to users in different
languages translated by MT, the quality of MT output should be studied from the point of view of the text’s adaptation to the
requirements of a specific audience and market, following the principles elaborated in localization studies. The aim of this paper
is to analyze the behavior of neural MT of user-generated content from the perspective of localization to check whether MT quality
depends exclusively on linguistic or stylistic aspects or whether the aspects studied by localization, such as linguistic and
cultural appropriateness for the target user, also play a decisive role. We compiled an English-Spanish parallel corpus consisting
of 250 reviews retrieved from Tripadvisor. The reviews were originally written in English and MT processed into Spanish. Then the
quality of the MT output was evaluated following two parameters: correctness and acceptance according to MT quality scales and
localization guidelines.
Keywords: localization, machine translation, user generated content, quality
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Importance and characteristics of UGC
- 3.Current status of MT: Characteristics of neural machine translation
- 3.1Quality parameters and metrics
- 3.2Machine translation and localization
- 4.Methodology
- 5.Analysis and discussion
- 5.1Evaluation of the MT quality of reviews
- 5.2Localization problems
- 5.2.1Localization errors: Cultural variants
- 5.2.2Localization errors: Linguistic variant
- 5.3Other causes affecting quality
- 5.3.1Errors caused by explanations or duplications in the original text
- 5.3.2Errors caused by typos in the original text
- 5.4Summary of results
- 6.Conclusions
References
References (34)
Arevalillo Doval, Juan J. 2000. “La Localización: concepto,
nuevas tecnologías y requisitos.” In Traducción y nuevas tecnologías,
herramientas auxiliares del traductor: encuentros en torno a la traducción, ed.
by Carmen Valero Garcés, and Isabel de la Cruz Cabanillas, 115–124. Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá de Henares.
Arivazhagan, Naveen, Ankur Bapna, Orhan Firat, Roee Aharoni, Melvin Johnson, and Wolfgang Macherey. 2019. “The
Missing Ingredient in Zero-Shot Neural Machine Translation.” arXiv. [URL]
Bahdanau, Dzmitry, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. “Neural
Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translate.” arXiv. [URL]
Banerjee, Snehasish, and Alton Y. K. Chua. 2014. “A
Linguistic Framework to Distinguish Between Genuine and Deceptive Online
Reviews.” In Proceedings of The International MultiConference of
Engineers and Computer Scientists 2014, ed. by Sio Iong Ao, Oscar Castillo, Craig Douglas, David Dagan Feng, and Jeong-A. Lee, 501–506. Hong Kong: International Association of Engineers. [URL]
Bernal-Merino, Miguel A. 2013. The Localisation of Video
Games. PhD diss. Imperial College of London. [URL]
Cadieux, Pierre, and Bert Esselink. 2004. “GILT:
Globalization, Internationalization, Localization, Translation.” Globalization
Insider 11(1): 1–5.
Candel-Mora, Miguel A. 2015. “Evaluation of English to
Spanish MT Output of Tourism 2.0 Consumer-Generated Reviews with Post-Editing
Purposes.” In Proceedings of the 37th Conference Translating and the
Computer, ed. by Joao Esteves-Ferreira, Juliet Macan, Ruslan Mitkov, and Olaf-Michael Stefanov, 37–47. London: AsLing. [URL]
Castilho, Sheila, Joss Moorkens, Federico Gaspari, Iacer Calixto, John Tinsley, and Andy Way. 2017. “Is
Neural Machine Translation the New State of the Art?.” The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical
Linguistics 108 (1): 109–120.
Castilho, Sheila, Stephen Doherty, Federico Gaspari, and Joss Moorkens. 2018. “Approaches
to Human and Machine Translation Quality Assessment: From Principles to
Practice.” In Translation Quality Assessment: From Principles to
Practice, ed. by Joss Moorkens, Sheila Castilho, Federico Gaspari, and Stephen Doherty, 9–38, Springer, Cham.
Doherty, Stephen. 2017. “Issues
in Human and Automatic Translation Quality Assessment.” In Human
Issues in Translation Technology, ed. by Dorothy Kenny, 131–148. London: Routledge.
Esselink, Bert. 2003. “The
Evolution of Localization.” Multilingual Computing and
Technology 14 (5): 4–7.
Fiederer, Rebecca, and Sharon O’Brien. 2009. “Quality
and Machine Translation: A Realistic Objective.” The Journal of Specialised
Translation 11(1): 52–74.
Forcada, Mikel L. 2017. “Making Sense of Neural Machine
Translation.” Translation
Spaces 6(2): 291–309.
Görög, Attila. 2014. “Quality
Evaluation Today: The Dynamic Quality Framework.” In Proceedings of
Translating and the Computer 36, ed. by João Esteves-Ferreira, Juliet Macan, Ruslan Mitkov, and Olaf-Michael Stefanov, 155–164. London: AsLing. [URL]
Jean, Sébastien, Kyunghyun Cho, Roland Memisevic, and Yoshua Bengio. 2015. “On
Using Very Large Target Vocabulary for Neural Machine
Translation.” In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the
Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the
Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing, Volume 1: Long Papers, ed.
by Chengqing Zong, and Michael Strube, 1–10. Beijing: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Ángel. 2008. El proceso de localización web:
estudio contrastivo de un corpus comparable del género sitio web corporativo. PhD
diss. Granada: Universidad de Granada.
. 2009. Conventions in Localisation:
A Corpus Study of Original Vs. Translated Web Texts. Jostrans: The Journal of Specialized
Translation, 121, 79–102.
Lommel, Arle, Hans Uszkoreit, and Aljoscha Burchardt. 2014. “Multidimensional
Quality Metrics (MQM): A Framework for Declaring and Describing Translation Quality
Metrics.” Revista
Tradumàtica 121: 455–463.
O’Brien, Sharon, Rahzeb Choudhury, Jaap van der Meer, and Nora Aranberri. 2011. TAUS
Dynamic Quality Evaluation Framework: TAUS Labs report. [URL]
O’Hagan, Minako, and David Ashworth. 2002. Translation-Mediated
Communication in a Digital World. Facing the Challenges of Globalization and
Localization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pérez Fernández, Lucila. 2010. La
localización de videojuegos (inglés-español): aspectos técnicos, metodológicos y
profesionales. PhD diss. Universidad de Málaga.
Peris-Abril, Álvaro, Miguel Domingo, and Francisco Casacuberta. 2017. “Interactive
Neural Machine Translation.” Computer Speech &
Language 451: 201–220.
Pollach, Irene. 2006. “Electronic
Word of Mouth: A Genre Analysis of Product Reviews on Consumer Opinion Web
Sites.” In Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, ed. by Ralph Sprague Jr., Vol. 31, 1530–1605. Washington D.C.: IEEE Computer Society. [URL].
Pym, Anthony. 2012. Teorías
contemporáneas de la traducción (exploraciones
pedagógicas). Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group- URV.
Ricci, Francesco, and René Wietsma. 2006. “Product
Reviews in Travel Decision-Making.” In Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism, ed. by Martin Hitz, Marianna Sigala, and Jamie Murphy, 296–307. Vienna: Springer.
Sánchez-Gijón, Pilar, Joss Moorkens, and Andy Way. 2019. “Post-Editing
Neural Machine Translation Versus Translation Memory Segments.” Machine
Translation 33(2): 31–59.
Schemmann, Brita. 2011. “A
Classification of Presentation Forms of Travel and Tourism-Related Online Consumer
Reviews.” e-Review of Tourism
Research 9 (2): 14–24. [URL]
Schuster, Mike, Melvin Johnson, and Nikhil Thorat. 2016. “Zero-Shot
Translation with Google’s Multilingual Neural Machine Translation System.” Google AI
Blog 221. [URL]
Tripadvisor. Accessed March 10, 2024. [URL]
Valli, Paola. 2015. “The
TAUS Quality Dashboard.” In Proceedings of the 37th Conference
Translating and the Computer, ed. by Joao Esteves-Ferreira, Juliet Macan, Ruslan Mitkov, and Olaf-Michael Stefanov, 127–136. London: AsLing. [URL]
Vásquez, Camilla. 2012. “Narrativity
and Involvement in Online Consumer Reviews: The Case of Tripadvisor.” Narrative
Inquiry 22(1): 105–121.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 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.
