Quantifying the Influence of MT Output in the Translators' Performance: A Case Study in Technical Translation

EACL 2014 - 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Workshop on Humans and Computer-assisted Translation, HaCaT 2014

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 93-98

  Zampieri, Marcos ^a   Vela, Mihaela ^a  

^a SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; MACHINE TRANSLATION;

CASE-STUDIES; MACHINE TRANSLATIONS; PERFORMANCE; TECHNICAL ENGLISH; TRANSLATION MEMORY; TRANSLATION QUALITY; TRANSLATION SPEED;

NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

EID: 85121837074     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Lynne Bowker. 2005. Productivity vs quality? a pilot study on the impact of translation memory systems. Localisation Reader, pages 133-140.
2. Jean Carletta. 1996. Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics, 22(2):249-254.
3. Mauro Cettolo, Christophe Servan, Nicola Bertoldi, Marcello Federico, Loic Barrault, and Holger Schwenk. 2013. Issues in incremental adaptation of statistical mt from human post-edits. In Proceedings of the MT Summit XIV Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice (WPTP-2), Nice, France.
4. Michael Denkowski and Alon Lavie. 2011. Meteor 1.3: Automatic Metric for Reliable Optimization and Evaluation of Machine Translation Systems. In Proceedings of the EMNLP 2011 Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation.
5. George Doddington. 2002. Automatic evaluation of machine translation quality using n-gram co-occurrence statistics. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Human Language Technology Research, HLT 2002, pages 138-145, San Francisco, CA, USA. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
6. Marcello Federico, Alessandro Cattelan, and Marco Trombetti. 2012. Measuring user productivity in machine translation enhanced computer assisted translation. In Proceedings of Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA).
7. Spence Green, Jeffrey Heer, and Christopher D Manning. 2013. The efficacy of human post-editing for language translation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
8. Ana Guerberof. 2009. Productivity and quality in the post-editing of outputs from translation memories and machine translation. Localisation Focus, 7(1):133-140.
9. Ana Guerberof. 2012. Productivity and Quality in the Post-Edition of Outputs from Translation Memories and Machine Translation. Ph.D. thesis, Rovira and Virgili University Tarragona.
10. Elina Lagoudaki. 2008. The value of machine translation for the professional translator. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, pages 262-269, Waikiki, Hawaii.
11. Samuel Läubli, Mark Fishel, Gary Massey, Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, and Martin Volk. 2013. Assessing post-editing efficiency in a realistic translation environment. In Proceedings of MT Summit XIV Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice.
12. Vladimir Iosifovich Levenshtein. 1966. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, (8):707-710, February.
13. Lucia Morado Vazquez, Silvia Rodriguez Vazquez, and Pierrette Bouillon. 2013. Comparing forum data post-editing performance using translation memory and machine translation output: a pilot study. In Proceedings of the Machine Translation Summit XIV), Nice, France.
14. Sharon O'brien. 2006. Eye-tracking and translation memory matches. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 14:185-204.
15. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL'02, pages 311-318, Stroudsburg, PA, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
16. Mirko Plitt and François Masselot. 2010. A productivity test of statistical machine translation post-editing in a typical localisation context. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 93:7-16.
17. Matthew Snover, Bonnie Dorr, Richard Schwartz, Linnea Micciulla, and John Makhoul. 2006. A study of translation edit rate with targeted human annotation. In Proceedings of Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, AMTA.
18. Matthew Snover, Nitin Madnani, Bonnie Dorr, and Richard Schwartz. 2009. Fluency, adequacy, or hter? exploring different human judgments with a tunable mt metric. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation at the 12th Meeting of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL 2009.
19. Harold Somers and Gabriela Fernandez Diaz. 2004. Translation memory vs. example-based mt: What is the difference? International Journal of Translation, 16(2):5-33.
20. Lucia Specia. 2011. Exploiting objective annotations for measuring translation post-editing effort. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, pages 73-80, Leuven, Belgium.
21. Jörg Tiedemann. 2012. Parallel data, tools and interfaces in opus. In Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'12), Istanbul, Turkey. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
22. Christoph Tillmann, Stephan Vogel, Hermann Ney, Alexander Zubiaga, and Hassan Sawaf. 1997. Accelerated dp based search for statistical translation. In European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, EUROSPEECH 1977, pages 2667-2670.