Résumés
Abstract
While the benefits of using post-editing for technical texts have been more or less acknowledged, it remains unclear whether post-editing is a viable alternative to human translation for more general text types. In addition, we need a better understanding of both translation methods and how they are performed by students as well as professionals, so that pitfalls can be determined and translator training can be adapted accordingly. In this article, we aim to get a better understanding of the differences between human translation and post-editing for newspaper articles. Processes are registered by means of eye tracking and keystroke logging, which allows us to study translation speed, cognitive load, and the use of external resources. We also look at the final quality of the product as well as translators’ attitude towards both methods of translation. Studying these different aspects shows that both methods and groups are more similar than anticipated.
Keywords:
- translation,
- post-editing,
- experience,
- translation process,
- translation quality
Résumé
Bien que l’on ait une certaine connaissance des avantages de la post-édition pour les textes techniques, il reste difficile de savoir si celle-ci est une solution de remplacement viable à la traduction humaine pour les textes généraux. Il faut par ailleurs comprendre davantage les deux méthodes de traduction, et la façon dont elles sont appliquées par les étudiants et les traducteurs professionnels, pour en déterminer les écueils et adapter la formation des traducteurs en conséquence. Dans cet article, nous cherchons à mieux cerner les différences entre la traduction humaine et la post-édition pour les articles de journaux. L’oculométrie et l’enregistrement de frappes ont été utilisés pour étudier le processus de traduction et dégager les gains en productivité, la charge cognitive et l’utilisation de ressources externes. Nous avons également examiné la qualité de la traduction et l’attitude des traducteurs à l’égard des deux méthodes de traduction. L’étude de ces différentes perspectives met en évidence que les deux groupes de traducteurs comme les deux méthodes de traduction sont plus proches que ce que l’on pouvait présumer.
Mots-clés :
- traduction,
- post-édition,
- expérience,
- processus de traduction,
- qualité de traduction
Resumen
Mientras que se reconocen cada vez más los beneficios del uso de la post-edición para la traducción de textos técnicos, aún no existen pruebas de que la post-edición sea una alternativa viable a la traducción humana para los textos más generales. Además, necesitamos una mejor comprensión de ambos métodos de traducción, así como de la forma en que son realizados por estudiantes y por profesionales, para que se puedan definir los posibles obstáculos y adaptar la formación de los traductores en función de ellos. En este artículo, nuestro objetivo es lograr una mejor comprensión de las diferencias entre la traducción humana y la post-edición de artículos periodísticos. Los procesos de traducción se registran mediante el seguimiento ocular y el registro de pulsaciones de teclas, lo que nos permite estudiar la velocidad de traducción, la carga cognitiva y el uso de recursos externos. También analizamos la calidad final del producto, así como la actitud de los traductores hacia ambos métodos de traducción. El estudio de estos diferentes aspectos demuestra que tanto los métodos como los grupos de traductores son más similares de lo previsto.
Palabras clave:
- traducción,
- post-edición,
- experiencia,
- proceso de traducción,
- calidad de traducción
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Akaike, Hirotugu (1974): A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. 19(6):716-723.
- Alabau, Vincent, Bonk, Ragnar, Buck, Christian, et al. (2013): CASMACAT: An open source workbench for advanced computer aided translation. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics. 100:101-112.
- Alves, Fabio and Campos, Tânia Liparini (2009): Translation technology in time: Investigating the impact of translation memory systems and time pressure on types of internal and external support. In: Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen and Inger M. Mees, eds. Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research. Frederiksberg C: Samfundslitteratur, 191-218.
- Aranberri, Nora, Labaka, Gorka, Diaz de Ilarraza, Arantza, et al. (2014): Comparison of Post-editing Productivity Between Professional Translators and Lay Users. Paper presented at the AMTA 2014 3rd Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice (WPTP-3), Vancouver, Canada, October 26, 2014.
- Asadi, Paula and Séguinot, Candace (2005): Shortcuts, strategies and general patterns in a process study of nine professionals. Meta. 50(2):522-547.
- Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben, et al. (2014): Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using eigen and s4. R package version 1.1-7. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
- Bowker, Lynne and Buitrago Ciro, Jairo (2015): Investigating the usefulness of machine translation for newcomers at the public library. Translation and Interpreting Studies. 10(2):165-186.
- Burnham, Kenneth and Anderson, David (2004): Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research. 33:261-304.
- Carl, Michael, Dragsted, Barbara, Elming, Jakob, et al. (2011): The process of post-editing: A pilot study. In: Bernadette Sharp, Michael Zock, Michael Carl and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, eds. Proceedings of the 8th International NLPCS Workshop. Frederiksberg C: Samfundsliterattur, 131-142.
- Carl, Michael, Dragsted, Barbara and Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke (2011): A taxonomy of human translation styles. Translation Journal. 16(2).
- Carl, Michael, Schaeffer, Moritz and Bangalore, Srinivas (2016): The CRITT translation process research database. In: Michael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore and Moritz Schaeffer, eds. New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research. Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 13-54.
- Daems, Joke, Carl, Michael, Vandepitte, Sonia, et al. (2016): The effectiveness of consulting external resources during translation and postediting of general text types. In: Michael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore and Moritz Schaeffer, eds. New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: CRITT TPR-DB. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 111-133.
- Daems, Joke, Macken, Lieve and Vandepitte, Sonia (2013): Quality as the sum of its parts: A two-step approach for the identification of translation problems and translation quality assessment for HT and MT+PE. Paper presented at the MT Summit XIV 2nd Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice (WPTP-2), Nice, France, 2-6 September, 2013.
- Doherty, Stephen (2016): The impact of translation technologies on the process and product of translation. International Journal of Communication. 10:647-969.
- Doherty, Stephen, O’Brien, Sharon and Carl, Michael (2010): Eye tracking as an MT evaluation technique. Machine Translation. 24:1-13.
- Fulford, Heather (2002): Freelance translators and machine translation: An investigation of perceptions, uptake, experience and training needs. Paper presented at the 6th annual conference of the European Association for Machine Translation Workshop on Teaching Machine Translation, Manchester, United Kingdom, 14-15 November, 2002.
- Gambier, Yves (2014): Changing landscape in translation. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language. 2(2):1-12.
- Garcia, Ignacio (2010): Is machine translation ready yet? Target. 22(1):7-21.
- Garcia, Ignacio (2011): Translating by post-editing: Is it the way forward? Machine Translation. 25:217-237.
- Gaspari, Federico, Toral, Antonio, Naskar, Sudip Kumar, et al. (2014): Perception vs reality: Measuring machine translation post-editing productivity Paper presented at the AMTA 2014 3rd Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice (WPTP-3), Vancouver, Canada , October 26, 2014.
- Gerloff, Pamela. (1988): From French to English: A look at the translation process in students, bilinguals, and professional translators. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge: Harvard University.
- Göpferich, Susanne (2009): Towards a model of translation competence and its acquisition: The longitudinal study transcomp. In: Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen and Inger M. Mees, eds. Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research. Frederiksberg C: Samfundslitteratur, 11-38.
- Guerberof, Ana (2009): Productivity and quality in mt post-editing. Paper presented at the MT Summit XII Beyond Translation Memories Workshop (WS3), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, August 29, 2009.
- Guerberof, Ana (2013): What do professional translators think about postediting? JoSTrans. 19:75-95.
- Hansen, Gyde (2010): Integrative description in translation process research. In: Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone, eds. Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 189-211.
- Jääskeläinen, Riitta. (1990): Features of successful translation processes: A think-aloud protocol study. Licentiate thesis. Joensuu: University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies.
- Jääskeläinen, Riitta (1996): Hard work will bear beautiful fruit. A comparison of two think-aloud protocol studies. Meta. 41(1):60-74.
- Jääskeläinen, Riitta (2010): Are all professionals experts? Definitions of expertise and reinterpretation of research evidence in process studies. In: Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone, eds. Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 213-262.
- Jääskeläinen, Riitta and Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja (1991): Automatised processes in professional vs. non-professional translation: A think-aloud protocol study. In: Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, ed. Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 89-109.
- Jensen, Astrid (1999): Time pressure in translation. In: Gyde Hansen, ed. Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results. Vol. 24. Frederiksberg C: Samfundslitteratur, 103-119.
- Just, Marcel and Carpenter, Patricia (1980): A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review. 87(4):329-354.
- Kiraly, Donald (1995): Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.
- Koglin, Arlene (2015): An empirical investigation of cognitive effort required to post-edit machine translated metaphors compared to the translation of metaphors. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting Research. 7(1):126-141.
- Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Brockhoff, Per Bruun and Christensen, Rune Haubo Bojesen. (2014): Lmertest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0-20. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest.
- Laukkanen, Johanna. (1993). Routine vs. Non-routine processes in translation: A think-aloud protocol study. pro gradu thesis. Joensuu: University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies.
- Leijten, Mariëlle and Van Waes, Luuk (2013): Keystroke logging in writing research: Using inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication. 30(3):325-343.
- Lemhöfer, Kristin and Broersma, Mirjam (2012): Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavior Research Methods. 44:325-343.
- Moorkens, Joss and O’Brien, Sharon (2015): Post-editing evaluations: Trade-offs between novice and professional participants. Paper presented at the 18th Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation (EAMT 2015), Antalya, Turkey, May 11-13, 2015.
- Nitzke, Jean and Oster, Katharina (2016): Comparing translation and post-editing: An annotation schema for activity units. In: Michael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore and Moritz Schaeffer, eds. New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research. Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 293-308.
- O’Brien, Sharon (2007): Eye-tracking and translation memory matches. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. 14(3):185-205.
- O’Curran, Elaine (2014): Translation quality in post-edited versus human-translated segments: A case study. Paper presented at the AMTA 2014 3rd Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice (WPTP-3), Vancouver, Canada, October 26, 2014.
- PACTE (2003): Building a translation competence model. In: Fabio Alves, ed. Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 43-66.
- Plitt, Mirko and Masselot, François (2010): A productivity test of statistical machine translation post-editing in a typical localisation context. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics. 93:7-16.
- R Core Team. (2014): R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org.
- Séguinot, Candace (1991): A study of student translation strategies. In: Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit; ed. Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 79-88.
- Sharmin, Selina, Šparkov, Oleg , Räihä, Kari-Jouko, et al. (2008): Effects of time pressure and text complexity on translators’ fixations. Paper presented at the 2008 Symposium on Eye-Tracking Research and Applications (ETRA’08), Savannah, GA, USA, March 26-28, 2008.
- Stenetorp, Pontus, Pyysalo, Sampo, Topic, Goran, et al. (2012): Brat: A web-based tool for NLP-assisted text annotation. Paper presented at the Demonstrations Session at EACL 2012, Avignon, France, April 23-27, 2012.
- Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja (1990): Professional vs. non-professional translation: A think-aloud protocol study. In: M. A. K. Halliday, John Gibbons and Howard Nicholas, eds. Learning, Keeping and Using Language: Selected papers from the Eighth World Congress of Applied Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 381-394.
- Zapata, Julian (2016): Investigating translator-information interaction: A case study on the use of the prototype biconcordancer tool integrated in CASMACAT. In: Michael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore and Moritz Schaeffer, eds. New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research. Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 135-152.