Undergraduate Level Translation Students’ Attitudes towards Machine Translation Post-Editing Training

Author :  

Year-Number: 2019-7.1
Language : English
Konu : null
Number of pages: 110-120
Mendeley EndNote Alıntı Yap

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

The need for translation has increased substantially at a global scale. To meet this ever increasing volume of translation, Machine Translation, which was once seen as a way to automate the translation process has again come to forefront with new methods. However, the expectations regarding the translation quality of Machine Translation is rather low for now. Thus, this paves the way for pre-editing and post-editing works. For this purpose, the professional translation market has undertaken some initiatives regarding training and use of Post-Editing among professional translators. Nevertheless, as it was the case for other tools of translation technology like Computer-Aided Translation or Terminology Management Systems, translation academia has fallen behind in adapting to new trends in translation market. In other words, there are not enough studies that take the issue of Machine Translation Post-Editing into consideration from a translation training perspective. For this reason, this study aims to investigate the attitudes of undergraduate level translation students towards Machine Translation Post-Editing with one-group pre-test and post-test research design. Upon the analysis of the data, a statistically significant difference was reported between pre-test and post-test scores. This shows that students’ attitudes towards MT PE have become more positive after the training.

Keywords


  • Allen, J. (2003). Post-Editing. In H. Somers (Ed.), Computers and Translation (pp. 297–319). Amsterdam:

  • Allen, J. (2003). Post-Editing. In H. Somers (Ed.), Computers and Translation (pp. 297–319). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

  • Almeida, G. de. (2013). Translating the post-editor: an investigation of post-editing changes and correlationswith professional experience across two Romance languages (Ph.D. Thesis). Dublin City University, Dublin.Alotaibi, H. (2014). Teaching CAT Tools to Translation Students: an Examination of Their Expectations and Attitudes. Arap World English Journal, 3(1), 65–74.

  • Anderson, L. W. (1988). Attitudes and their Measurement. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational Research, Methodology, and Measurement: An International Handbook (pp. 42–426). New York: Pergaman.

  • Bowker, L. (2005). Productivity vs Quality? A pilot study on the impact of translation memory systems. Localization Focus, 4(1), 13–20.

  • Fiederer, R., & O’Brien, S. (2009). Quality and Machine Translation: A realistic objective? The Journal of Specialised Translation, 11, 52–74.

  • Floran, D. (2010). Translation Tools. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translationstudies (Vol. 1, pp. 429–436). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. Retrieved from http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=871816

  • Gambier, Y. (2014). Changing Landscape in Translation. International Journal of Society, Culture and Language, 2(2), 2–12.

  • Gaspari, F. (2001). Teaching Machine Translation to Trainee Translators: a Survey of Their Knowledge and Opinions. In Teaching Machine Translation (pp. 35–44). Spain.

  • Koponen, M. (2015). How to teach machine translation post-editing? Experiences from a post-editing course. In 4th Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (pp. 2–14). Miami.

  • Kumar, A. (2013). Machine Translation in Arabic-Speaking ELT Classrooms: Applications and Implications. IJSSH International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 442–446.

  • Ling, T. H., San, N. Y., & Foo, T. C. V. (2016). The Efficacy of Machine Translation Tools in TheTranslatıon of Technical and Non-Technical Texts: Perceptions of Undergraduate Student Users. Laglit, 3(2), 1–14.

  • Mossop, B. (2014). Revising and editing for translators. London: Routledge.

  • Plitt, M., & Masselot, F. (2010). A Productivity Test of Statistical Machine Translation Post-Editing in a Typical Localisation Context. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 93, 7–16.

  • Rossi, C. (2017). Introducing statistical machine translation in translator training: from uses andperceptions to course design, and back again. Revista Tradumàtica. Tecnologies de la Traducció, (15), 48.

  • Şahin, M. (2015). Machine Translation and Computer-Aided Translation for English Turkish from theViewpoint of Prospective Translators: The Google Experiment. Hacettepe University Journal of Translation Studies, 21, 43–60.

  • Scocco, L. (2011). Machine Translation Aid to the Test: A study on the benefits of post-editing for translation into the weaker language (Master Thesis). University of Western Sydney, Sydney.

  • Steurs, F. (2014). Man vs. Machine (Translation): MT as a Tool for Translators. In From Classroom to Workplace. Portsmouth.

  • Sukkhwan, A. (2014). Students’ Attitudes and Behaviours towards the Use of Google Translate (Master Thesis). Prince of Songkla University, Tailand.

  • Temizöz, Ö. (2014). Postediting machine translation output and its revision: subject-matter expert expertsversus professional translators (Ph.D. Thesis). Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona. Retrieved from http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/128204

  • Witczak, O. (2016). Incorporating post-editing into a computer-assisted translation course. A study of student attitudes. Journal of Translator Education and Translation Studies, 1(1), 33–55.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        
  • Article Statistics