Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
2014 AMT A Third Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice Sharon O’Brien Michel Simard Lucia Specia WORKSHOP The 11th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas Vancouver, BC October 22-26 amta2014.amtaweb.org The 11th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas October 22 – 26, 2014 -- Vancouver, BC Canada Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (WPTP-3) Sharon O’Brien, Michel Simard and Lucia Specia (Eds.) Association for Machine Translation in the Americas http://www.amtaweb.org Table of Contents 5 MT Post-editing into the mother tongue or into a foreign language? Spanish-to-English MT translation output post-edited by translation trainees Pilar Sánchez Gijón and Olga Torres-Hostench 20 Comparison of post-editing productivity between professional translators and lay users Nora Aranberri, Gorka Labaka, Arantza Diaz de Ilarraza, Kepa Sarasola 34 Monolingual Post-Editing by a Domain Expert is Highly Effective for Translation Triage Lane Schwartz 45 Perceived vs. measured performance in the post-editing of suggestions from machine translation and translation memories Carlos S. C. Teixeira 60 Perception vs Reality: Measuring Machine Translation Post-Editing Productivity Federico Gaspari, Antonio Toral, Sudip Kumar Naskar, Declan Groves, Andy Way 73 Cognitive Demand and Cognitive Effort in Post-Editing Isabel Lacruz, Michael Denkowski, Alon Lavie 85 Vocabulary Accuracy of Statistical Machine Translation in the Legal Context Jeffrey Killman 99 Towards desktop-based CAT tool instrumentation John Moran, Christian Saam, Dave Lewis 113 Translation Quality in Post-Edited versus Human-Translated Segments: A Case Study Elaine O’Curran Demos 119 TAUS Post-Editing course Attila Görög 120 TAUS Post-editing Productivity Tool Attila Görög 121 QuEst: a Framework for Translation Quality Estimation Lucia Specia and Kashif Shah 122 An Open Source Desktop Post-Editing Tool Lane Schwartz 123 Real Time Adaptive Machine Translation: cdec and TransCenter Michael Denkowski, Alon Lavie, Isabel Lacruz, and Chris Dyer 124 Post-editing User Interface Using Visualization of a Sentence Structure Yudai Kishimoto, Toshiaki Nakazawa, Daisuke Kawahara, and Sadao Kurohashi 125 Kanjingo: A Mobile App for Post-Editing Sharon O'Brien, Joss Moorkens, and Joris Vreeke Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice (WPTP-3) Edited by Sharon O’Brien, Michel Simard and Lucia Specia AMTA Workshop, Vancouver, Canada, October 26 2014 Committees Organizing Committee Sharon O'Brien - Dublin City University Michel Simard - National Research Council Canada Lucia Specia - University of Sheffield Joss Moorkens - Dublin City University Program Committee Nora Aranberri -- University of the Basque Country Diego Bartolome -- tauyou <language technology> Michael Carl -- Copenhagen Business School Francisco Casacuberta -- Universitat Politècnica de València Stephen Doherty -- University of Western Sydney Andreas Eisele -- European Commission Marcello Federico -- FBK-IRST Mikel L. Forcada -- Universitat d’Alacant Philipp Koehn -- University of Edinburgh Roland Kuhn -- National Research Council Canada Isabel Lacruz -- Kent State University Alon Lavie -- Carnegie Mellon University 1 Elliott Macklovitch -- Independent Consultant Daniel Marcu -- University of Southern California John Moran -- Transpiral Translation Services Kristen Parton -- Columbia University Maja Popović -- DFKI Johann Roturier -- Symantec Midori Tatsumi -- Independent Researcher/Lecturer Andy Way -- CNGL / Dublin City University Programme 9:00 - 10:30 Session 1 9:00 MT Post-Editing into the Mother Tongue or into a Foreign Language? Spanish-English MT Output Post-Edited by Translation Trainees Pilar Sánchez Gijon and Olga Torres Hostench 9:30 Comparison of Post-Editing Productivity between Professional Translators and Lay Users Nora Aranberri, Gorka Labaka, Arantza Diaz de Iiarraza, and Kepa Sarasola 10:00 Monolingual Post-Editing by a Domain Expert is Highly Effective for Translation Triage Lane Schwartz 10:30 - 11:00 Coffee Break 11:00 - 12:30 Session 2 11:00 Perceived vs. Measured Performance in the Post-Editing of Suggestions from Machine Translation and Translation Memories Carlos Teixeira 2 11:30 Perception vs. Reality: Measuring Machine Translation Post-Editing Productivity Federico Gaspari, Antonio Toral, Sudip Kumar Naskar, and Declan Groves 12:00 Cognitive Demand and Cognitive Effort in Post-Editing Isabel Lacruz, Michael Denkowski and Alon Lavie 12:30 - 14:00 Lunch Break 14:00 - 16:00 Posters and Demos Vocabulary Accuracy of Statistical Machine Translation in the Legal Context Jeffrey Killman Towards Desktop-Based CAT Tool Instrumentation -- iOmegaT John Moran, David Lewis and Christian Saam Translation Quality in Post-Edited versus Human-Translated Segments: A Case Study Elaine O'Curran The TAUS Post-Editing Course & The TAUS Post-editing Productivity Tools Attila Görög QuEst for Estimating Post-Editing Effort Lucia Specia An Open-Source Desktop Post-Editing Tool Lane Schwartz 3 Real-Time Adaptive Machine Translation: Cdec and TransCenter Michael Denkowski Post-Editing User Interface Using Visualization of a Sentence Structure Yudai Kishimoto, Toshiaki Nakazawa, Daisuke Kawahara and Sadao Kurohashi Kanjingo: A Mobile App for Post-Editing Sharon O’Brien 16:00 - 17:30 Panel: What Lies Ahead for Post-editing? Moderator: Mike Dillinger (AMTA President) Panelists: Olga Beragovaya (Welocalize) John Moran (CNGL, TCD) David Rumsey (President-Elect at American Translators’ Association) Lori Thicke (Translators Without Borders) Chris Wendt (Microsoft) 4 MT Post-editing into the mother tongue or into a foreign language? Spanish-to-English MT trans- lation output post-edited by translation trainees Pilar Sánchez-Gijón [email protected] Olga Torres-Hostench [email protected] Tradumàtica Research Group, Departament of Translation, Interpreting and Eastern Studies, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, 08193, Spain Abstract The aim of this study is to analyse whether translation trainees who are not native speakers of the target language are able to perform as well as those who are native speakers, and whether they achieve the expected quality in a “good enough” post-editing (PE) job. In par- ticular the study focuses on the performance of two groups of students doing PE from Span- ish into English: native English speakers and native Spanish speakers. A pilot study was set up to collect evidence to compare and contrast the two groups‟ performances. Trainees from both groups had been given the same training in PE and were asked to post-edit 30 sentenc- es translated from Spanish to English. The PE output was analyzed taking into account ac- curacy errors (mistranslations and omissions) as well as language errors (grammatical errors and syntax errors). The results show that some native Spanish speakers corrected just as many errors as the native English speakers. Furthermore, the Spanish-speaking trainees outperformed their English-speaking counterparts when identifying mistranslations and omissions. Moreover, the performances of the best English-speaking and Spanish-speaking trainees at identifying grammar and syntax errors were very similar. 1. Introduction V.(d) A translator should, as far as possible, translate into his own mother tongue or into a language of which he or she has a mastery equal to that of his or her mother tongue. UNESCO Recommendation, November 22nd 1976 Since UNESCO issued its recommendation, more and more translation companies and trans- lation faculties have been adopting this “mother-tongue principle”, with excellent results. However, various authors have questioned this principle. Campbell (1998:212) argues that the “dynamics of immigration, international commerce and the postcolonial world make it inevi- table that much translation is done into a second language, despite the prevailing wisdom that translators should only work into their mother tongue.” Kelly (2003) defends the same argu- ments of necessity, and Pokorn (2005: X) is perhaps the most critical. The latter argues that the traditional view “according to which translators should translate only into their mother tongue in order to create linguistically and culturally-acceptable translations (…) stems from an aprioristic conviction unsupported by any scientific proof that translation into a mother tongue is ipso facto superior to translation into a non-mother tongue.” 5 Is the same principle applicable to post-editing (PE)? Should PE also adhere blindly to this principle? Marcel Thelen, a supporter of non-native translators (2005:250), argues that the principle is too rigid and questions the UNESCO recommendation. The following extract from Thelen‟s book unintentionally became the starting point for the research presented in this paper. “Applying the mother tongue principle seems to have become a sort of quality assurance, part of a guarantee of specialisation. Sticking to the native speaker rule is, however, not necessary in many cases, especially since clients do not all require the same quality of translations depending on the envisaged purpose. (…) In addition, with the implementation of technology and different kinds of translation tools, it becomes increasingly „easy‟ for non-natives speakers to produce good English through post-editing.” Is this true? Is it really so easy for non-native speakers to produce “good English”? In what sense would PE quality be affected if it