Quality and machine translation: A realistic objective?

Journal of Specialised Translation

Volumn , Issue 11, 2009, Pages 52-74

  Fiederer, Rebecca ^a   O’Brien, Sharon ^a  

^a DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Controlled language; Machine translation; Machine translation evaluation; Translation quality

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954569759     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1740357X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. • Aikawa, Takako et al (2007). “Impact of Controlled Language on Translation Quality and Post-Editing in a Statistical Machine Translation Environment”. In Proceedings of the MT Summit XI. Copenhagen, Denmark, 10-14 September. 1-7.
2. • Arnold, Doug et al (1994). Machine Translation: An Introductory Guide. Oxford: NCC Blackwell.
3. th International Conference on Computational Linguistics). Geneva, Switzerland, August 2004, 106-112.
4. nd Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics). Barcelona, Spain, 621-628.
5. • Bernth, Arendse (1998). “Easy English: Preprocessing for MT” in Proceedings of CLAW 98 (the Second International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications). Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Language Technology Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 30-41.
6. • Bowker, Lynne and Ehgoetz, Melissa (2007). “Exploring User Acceptance of Machine Translation Output: A Recipient Evaluation”. Dorothy Kenny and Kyongjoo Ryou (Eds) (2007). Across Boundaries: International Perspectives on Translation. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 209-224.
7. th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics). Trento, Italy, 249-246.
8. • Coughlin, Deborah (2003). “Correlating Automated and Human Assessments of Machine Translation Evaluation”. In Online Proceedings of the MT Summit IX (2003). New Orleans. Online at: http://www.amtaweb.org/summit/MTSummit/papers.html (consulted 03.09.2007).
9. • Dabbadie, Marianne et al (2002). “A Hands-On Study of the Reliability and Coherence of Evaluation Metrics”. In Proceedings of LREC 2002 (Language Resources and Evaluation Conference). Las Palmas, Canary Islands, 27 May 2002. 8-16. Online at: http://mt-archive.info/LREC-2002-Dabbadie-2.pdf (consulted 15.08.2007).
10. nd Conference on Human Language Technology). San Diego, California, 128-132.
11. • Dyson, Mary and Hannah, Jean (1987). “Toward a Methodology for the Evaluation of Machine Assisted Translation Systems”. Computers and Translation 2(3), 163-176.
12. • Hamon, Olivier et al (2007). “Assessing Human and Automated Quality Judgments in the French MT-Evaluation Campaign CESTA”. In Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit XI. Copenhagen, Denmark. 10-14 September. 231-238.
13. • Hutchins, John and Somers, Harold (1992). An Introduction to Machine Translation. London: Academic Press Limited.
14. • King, Margaret, Popescu-Belis, Andrei and Hovy, Eduard (2003). “FEMTI: Creating and Using a Framework for MT Evaluation”. In Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit IX, 23-27 September, New Orleans. 224-231. Online at: http://www.amtaweb.org/summit/MTSummit/papers.html (consulted 03.09.2007)
15. • Krings, Hans P. (2001). Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-Editing Processes. Geoffrey S. Koby (ed/translator). Kent, Ohio: The Kent State University Press.
16. • Maegaard, Bente (ed.) (2007). Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit XI, 10-14 September 2007. Copenhagen, Denmark.
17. • Mitamura, Teruko (1999). “Controlled Language for Multilingual Machine Translation”. In Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit VII. 13-17 September. Kent Ridge Digital Labs, Singapore. 46-52. Online at: www.lti.cs.cmu.edu/Research/Kant/PDF/MTSummit99.pdf (consulted 18.12.2007)
18. th International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation (TMI-95). 5-7 July 1995. Leuven, Belgium, 158-172.
19. • O’Brien, Sharon (2006). Machine-Translatability and Post-Editing Effort: An Empirical Study Using Translog and Choice Network Analysis. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Dublin City University.
20. • — (2005). “Methodologies for Measuring the Correlations between Post-Editing Effort and Machine Text Translatability”. In Machine Translation 19(1), 37-58.
21. • Roturier, Johann (2006). An Investigation into the Impact of Controlled English Rules on the Comprehensibility, Usefulness and Acceptability of Machine-Translated Technical Documentation for French and German Users”. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Dublin City University.
22. • Schäler, Reinhard (1998). “The Problem with Machine Translation”. In Bowker, L. et al (eds) Unity in Diversity: Recent Trends in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome, 151-156.
23. • Senez, Dorothy (1998). “Post-editing Service for Machine Translation Users at the European Commission”. In Proceedings of Translating and the Computer 20. London: Aslib.
24. • Underwood, Nancy and Jongejan, Bart (2001). “Translatability Checker: A Tool to Help Decide Whether to Use MT”. In Maegaard, B. (ed.) Proceedings of the MT Summit VII: Machine Translation in the Information Age. 18-22 September. Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 363-368.
25. th International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation - TMI 2007. 7-9 September. Skövde, Sweden. Online at: http://www.mt-archive.info/TMI-2007-TOC.htm (consulted: 07 January 2008).
26. • White, John (2003). “How to Evaluate Machine Translation”. In Somers, H. (ed.) Computers and Translation: A Translator’s Guide. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 211-244.