On the correctness of machine translation: A machine translation post-editing task

Machine translated texts are increasingly used for quickly obtaining an idea of the content of a text and as a basis for editing the text for publication. This paper presents a study examining how well a machine-translated text can convey the intended meaning to the reader. In the experiment described, test subjects edited machine-translated texts from English into Finnish. In order to observe how well it would be possible for the test subjects to decipher the meaning of the source text based on the machine translation alone, they had no access to the source text. Their edits were assessed by the authors of the paper for the correctness of meaning (compared to the source text) and language (compared to the target language norms and conventions). The results show that the test subjects were successful at deducing the correct meaning without the source text for about half of the edited sentences. The results also suggest that errors in word forms and mangled relations that can be deduced based on context are the kind of machine translation errors that are easier to recover from, while mistranslated idioms and missing content seem to be more critical to understand the meaning.

[1]  Lucia Specia,et al.  Post-editing time as a measure of cognitive effort , 2012, AMTA.

[2]  M. Tatsumi Correlation between Automatic Evaluation Metric Scores, Post-Editing Speed, and Some Other Factors , 2009, MTSUMMIT.

[3]  Philipp Koehn,et al.  Enabling Monolingual Translators: Post-Editing vs. Options , 2010, NAACL.

[4]  Leena Salmi,et al.  Machine Translation, Post-Editing and Respeaking: Challenges for Translator Training , 2014 .

[5]  Sharon O ‟ Brien Towards a Dynamic Quality Evaluation Model for Translation , 2011 .

[6]  Vassilis Korkas,et al.  The Journal of Specialised Translation Issue 02-July 2004 Teaching aspects of LSP (Language for Special Purposes) to non- specialists: A case for background courses in translation studies programmes , 2004 .

[7]  Maarit Koponen,et al.  Comparing human perceptions of post-editing effort with post-editing operations , 2012, WMT@NAACL-HLT.

[8]  Vladimir Eidelman,et al.  The Value of Monolingual Crowdsourcing in a Real-World Translation Scenario: Simulation using Haitian Creole Emergency SMS Messages , 2011, WMT@EMNLP.

[9]  François Masselot,et al.  A Productivity Test of Statistical Machine Translation Post-Editing in a Typical Localisation Context , 2010, Prague Bull. Math. Linguistics.

[10]  Alina Secar Translation Evaluation-a State of the Art Survey , 2006 .

[11]  F. Rudzicz Human Language Technologies : The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2010 .

[12]  Judith Rosenhouse,et al.  Evaluating student translations by discourse analysis , 1990 .

[13]  Sharon O'Brien,et al.  Quality and Machine Translation: A realistic objective? , 2009 .

[14]  Irina P. Temnikova,et al.  Cognitive Evaluation Approach for a Controlled Language Post-Editing Experiment , 2010, LREC.

[15]  Philipp Koehn,et al.  Findings of the 2010 Joint Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation and Metrics for Machine Translation , 2010, WMT@ACL.

[16]  Nicole Martínez Melis,et al.  Assessment in translation studies : Research needs , 2001 .

[17]  Ignacio Garcia,et al.  Improvements to NAATI testing-Development of a conceptual overview for a new model for NAATI standards, testing and assessment , 2012 .

[18]  Malcolm Williams,et al.  The Application of Argumentation Theory to Translation Quality Assessment , 2001 .

[19]  Linda Mitchell,et al.  Community-based post-editing of machine-translated content: monolingual vs. bilingual , 2013, MTSUMMIT.

[20]  Michael Carl,et al.  The Process of Post-Editing: A Pilot Study , 2011 .

[21]  Hermann Ney,et al.  Error Analysis of Statistical Machine Translation Output , 2006, LREC.