Advertisement

Introduction

  • Joss Moorkens
  • Sheila Castilho
  • Federico Gaspari
  • Stephen Doherty
Chapter
Part of the Machine Translation: Technologies and Applications book series (MATRA, volume 1)

Abstract

The continuing growth in digital content means that there is now significantly more linguistic content to translate using more diverse workflows and tools than ever before. This growth necessitates broader requirements for Translation Quality Assessment (TQA) that include appropriate methods for the domain, text type, workflow, and end-user. With this in mind, this volume sheds light on TQA research and practice from academic, institutional, and industry settings in its unique combination of human and machine translation evaluation (MTE). The focus in this book is on the product, rather than the process, of translation. The contributions trace the convergence of post-hoc TQA methods, with cross-pollination from one translation method to another: New error typologies are being taken on for MTE; the concept of ‘fitness for purpose’ when raw or post-edited MT is considered ‘good enough’ is now also used for crowdsourced translation. The state-of-the-art evinces a pragmatic focus, calibrated to a targeted end-user group. Understanding translation technologies and the appropriate evaluation techniques is critical to the successful integration of these technologies in the language services industry of today, where the lines between human and machine have become increasingly blurred and adaptability to change has become a key asset that can ultimately mean success or failure in a competitive landscape.

References

  1. Abdallah K (2017) Three-dimensional quality model: the focal point of workflow management in organisational ergonomics. Paper presented at Translating and the Computer 39, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Drugan J (2013) Quality in professional translation: assessment and improvement. Bloomsbury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Graham Y, Baldwin T, Moffat A, Zobel J (2017) Can machine translation systems be evaluated by the crowd alone? J Nat Lang Eng (JNLE) 23(1):3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ivarsson J, Carroll M (1998) Subtitling. TransEdit, SimrishamnGoogle Scholar
  5. Lommel A, DePalma DA (2016) Europe’s leading role in machine translation. Common Sense Advisory, BostonGoogle Scholar
  6. Suojanen T, Koskinen K, Tuominen T (2015) User-centred translation. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Vermeer HJ (1978) Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Translationstheorie. Lebende Sprachen 23(3):99–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Way A (2013) Traditional and emerging use-cases for machine translation. Paper presented at Translating and the Computer 35, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joss Moorkens
    • 1
  • Sheila Castilho
    • 2
  • Federico Gaspari
    • 2
  • Stephen Doherty
    • 3
  1. 1.ADAPT Centre/School of Applied Language and Intercultural StudiesDublin City UniversityDublinIreland
  2. 2.ADAPT Centre/School of ComputingDublin City UniversityDublinIreland
  3. 3.School of Humanities and LanguagesThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations