Approaching Machine Translation from Translation Studies – a Perspective on Commonalities, Potentials, Differences
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Approaching Machine Translation from Translation Studies – a perspective on commonalities, potentials, differences Oliver Culoˇ Faculty of Translation Studies, Linguistics, and Cultural Studies University of Mainz 76726 Germersheim, Germany [email protected] Abstract and even desirable, especially in the light of recent developments. On the one hand, paradigms in MT The exchange between Translation Studies have been shifting into a direction in which lin- (TS) and Machine Translation (MT) has guistic and translational knowledge is being rein- been relatively rare. However, given recent tegrated in various ways in hybrid architectures, cf. developments in both fields like increased e.g. (Eisele et al., 2008), by means of adding mor- importance of post-editing and reintegra- phological or word order information , e.g. (Koehn tion of linguistic and translational knowl- and Hoang, 2007; Collins et al., 2005), adding syn- edge into hybrid systems, it seems desir- tactic information, e.g. (Quirk et al., 2005; Ding able to intensify the exchange. This paper and Palmer, 2005), or adapting models to domains, aims to contribute to bridging the gap be- e.g. (Koehn and Schroeder, 2007; Bertoldi and tween the two fields. I give a brief account Federico, 2009). On the other hand, TS has seen of the changing perspective of TS schol- a rise of empirical, often corpus-based research in ars on the field of translation as a whole, various areas, e.g. (Hansen-Schirra et al., 2012; including MT, leading to a more open con- Oakes and Ji, 2012; Rojo and Ibarretxe-Antunano, cept of translation. I also point out some 2013), which in method and communication style potential for knowledge transfer from TS certainly is more accessible to researchers from to MT, the idea here centring around the MT. Last but not least, post-editing – where hu- adoption of text-centric notions from TS mans and the machine meet – is of growing impor- both for the further development of MT tance in the translator’s world. systems and the study of post-editing phe- nomena. The paper concludes by suggest- This paper thus addresses some points with re- ing further steps to be taken in order to fa- gard to fostering exchange between TS and MT. cilitate an intensified future exchange. Section 2 gives an account of some emerging views towards a more open concept of the phe- 1 Introduction nomenon called translation. Section 3 makes sug- gestions how MT could benefit from adopting Translation Studies (TS) and Machine Translation text-centred notions prominent in TS. Section 4 (MT) share core goals, the most prominent among presents some initial findings from post-editing them being the study and accomplishment of trans- studies, indicating a case of how post-editing influ- lation between two languages. Still, exchange has ences the process of translation, thus pointing out been remarkably rare between the two disciplines the need to further study these two processes in a in the past decades. contrastive manner. Section 5 discusses the obser- Despite possible reasons for misunderstandings vations presented and makes suggestions with re- and scepticism, some of them being discussed in spect to potential further directions in the endeav- section 2, this paper intends to show that intensi- our to bridge the gap between TS and MT. Section fied exchange between the two fields is possible 6 then concludes the paper. c 2014 The authors. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons 3.0 licence, no derivative works, attribution, CC- Having been written by someone who is aware BY-ND. of some of the developments in MT but usually 199 is concerned with more human-centric issues of translators, translation scholars, etc., a scepticism translation, it is conceivable that in this paper some which he connects to feelings of uncertainty in of the latest and greatest developments in MT have a progressively digitalised world. He proposes a been missed. While inevitably this opinion piece view on MT as a tool available to humans; hu- is shaped in many ways by my personal view of mans, then, would still be the agents in the trans- MT, the main goal of this contribution is to give an lation process, as someone has to design and use account of a potential common ground of MT and MT systems. Rozmyslowicz’s view might indeed TS as well as to promote further discussion on this help solve the dilemma of intentionality and agen- topic. tivity and tear down some of the walls having been erected over time. After all, nobody would think 2 Towards a cluster concept of of declaring lexicography as useless or not of in- translation terest to TS, and if dictionaries are merely “tools” available to us in the translation process, then so At first sight, the image that one could come up can be MT. with for MT and TS is that of unequal twins. While being concerned with the same core goals, the ap- Ultimately, though, it will be necessary to rede- proaches to translation taken by the two fields dif- fine TS in a way which will not rule out MT as fer. While MT is often associated with a some- a field of interest to translation scholars. Cronin what mechanistic view of language and seems (2012), for instance, goes so far as to define trans- more interested in “how to make things work”, lation as a technology by itself and describes the TS emphasises the importance of cultural factors progressing digitalisation as a mere change in the and discusses problems such as (un)translatability nature of translation. This does not say much, or the dichotomy between freedom and loyalty in however, about the different perspectives on and translation. In short, TS at least is much con- approaches to translation and their relation to each cerned with the “things that don’t work” as with other. More promisingly, Tymoczko (2005) puts those that work. Also, MT discourse traditionally forward a view on translation as a cluster concept, shows many characteristics of fields like engineer- i.e. an open concept in which the various clusters ing, e.g. the frequent use of mathematical sym- (e.g. linguistic and cultural translation theory, var- bols, while TS communication is more discursive ious national or regional traditions, etc.) are con- in nature. Last but not least, the entity “at work” nected by family resemblances. Tymoczko also in the translation process is a very different one. emphasises that the translation concept will in fu- Following Catford’s (1965, 31) definitions, I see ture inevitably extend further due to the ongoing the translation machine as a device operating with technological changes. Her view underlines the di- co-textually based algorithms, whereas the human versity of approaches to translation, perspectives translator follows looser, more contextually based on it, etc, and, by the very meaning of diversity, rules and norms which can deliberately be bent or does not bear any aspect of dominance1 of one side ignored. over the other. Present-day mainstream TS theory liberates the human translator from merely being an inter- In this paper, I will adopt the views expressed by operater decoding messages in one language and Tymoczko. If MT is related to human-centric TS encoding them in another. Translation is seen as by family resemblances, it is necessary to identify an intentional human act with the goal of produc- the common ground of MT and TS. In the follow- ing a text in a target language with a specific rela- ing, I will discuss areas which may be of value to tion to the target culture. Rozmyslowicz (in press) both, by means of knowledge transfer, exchange, discusses this conceptualisation as a cause for a or joint research. Of course, only a fraction of pos- theoretical dilemma: By this definition of transla- sible topics can be addressed here. tion which emphasises the aspects agentivity and intentionality, MT is in fact discarded as a type of translation, as the criterion of intentionality is something a machine does not match. 1As opposed to such concepts like acceptance or tolerance Rozmyslowicz aims at helping to overcome which I understand to presuppose certain structures of power the scepticism towards MT that exists amongst or dominance, or the struggle for it 200 3 The translation unit text and its and behaving like a target culture text. In terms implications for Machine Translation of functional translation theory, one could charac- terise MT as a kind of translation which generally Translators have benefitted from many technical aims at being instrumental and functionally con- innovations in MT. Translation memories, term stant (i.e. retaining text function). databases, and parallel corpora have radically changed the translator’s workplace in the past With text as a key concept for translation, text decades; MT proper is set to equally become part type is one of the factors that comes into focus. of the translation process. This can also work the While it is useful to think of translation happening other way around, as will be argued in the follow- in different domains with all the effects described ing, with the translation world – or in this case TS – above, two different text types in the same domain holding things in store that may be valuable to MT. may be of very different nature – even more so in We will look at how TS uses the concept text to two different languages, thus adding the factor of model translation, and how MT could benefit from translation direction to the set of relevant factors. adopting notions associated with this concept. Let us look, for instance, at the business domain. A financial report will be very formal both in En- MT has been using notions like domain which, glish and German.