Abstract
Translation studies – like other disciplines – are influenced by digitization, big data analytics, and artificial intelligence. Two major scientific developments exploit digital and data-driven methods and are currently triggering a “predictive turn” in translation studies: machine learning approaches to translation and computational modelling of the human translation process. This chapter presents a literature review of these two areas and explains the development of the “predictive turn.” The impact of machine translation on the market, practice, and theory of translation changes the way a translation is defined; it is not necessarily only a human product or service anymore. Using behavioral and imaging techniques – e.g., eye tracking, electroencephalography (EEG), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) – the hitherto speculatively investigated translation process is becoming increasingly predictable. Machine translation aims to predict the product of the translation process which used to be human only and which is being modelled by translation process researchers. The ever-tighter integration of human and machine means that risks resulting from this interaction (e.g., in terms of error rates) must be calculated differently. While not yet possible, a fully implemented model of the translation process which can predict when and why a translator is having trouble carrying out the task could be integrated with a machine translation system and which behaves in such a way as to provide the necessary information the human needs to solve the problem at hand. It is also very likely that machine translation systems will learn from the human process so that they will eventually become even better at predicting what and how the human would translate. The integration between human and machine will, just like in all other aspects of life, become more intimate, radicalizing the risks and benefits associated with this conversation between mathematical models and human behavior and cognition.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alves, F., & Vale, D. C. (2009). Probing the unit of translation in time: Aspects of the design and development of a web application for storing, annotating, and querying translation process data. Across Languages and Cultures: A Multidisciplinary Journal for Translation and Interpreting Studies, 10(2), 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.5.
Alves, F., & Vale, D. C. (2011). On drafting and revision in translation: A corpus linguistics oriented analysis of translation process data. Translation: Corpora, Computation, Cognition. Special Issue on Parallel Corpora: Annotation, Exploitation, Evaluation, 1(1), 105–122. Available at: http://www.t-c3.org/.
Balling, L. W., & Carl, M. (2014). Production time across languages and tasks: A large-scale analysis using the CRITT translation process database. In A. Ferreira & J. Schwieter (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and cognitive inquiries in translation and interpretation studies (pp. 239–268). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Belinkov, Y. et al. (2017). Evaluating layers of representation in neural machine translation on part-of-speech and semantic tagging tasks. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (volume 1: Long Papers) (pp. 1–10). Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. Available at: http://aclweb.org/anthology/I17-1001
BNC. (2007). The British National Corpus, version 3. Available at: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
Bock, B. M., Lange, D., & Fix, U. (2017). Das Phänomen “Leichte Sprache” im Spiegel aktueller Forschung – Tendenzen, Fragestellungen und Herangehensweisen. In B. M. Bock, D. Lange, & U. Fix (Eds.), Leichte Sprache“ im Spiegel” theoretischer und angewandter Forschung (pp. 11–31). Berlin: Frank & Timme.
Bredel, U., & Maaß, C. (2016). Ratgeber Leichte Sprache. Die wichtigsten Regeln und Empfehlungen für die Praxis. Berlin: Dudenverlag.
Canfora, C., & Ottmann, A. (2015). Risikomanagement für Übersetzungen. trans-kom, 8(2), 314–346.
Carl, M. (2010). A computational framework for a cognitive model of human translation processes. In Proceedings of Aslib translating and the computer 32. London.
Carl, M., & Dragsted, B. (2012). Inside the monitor model: Processes of default and challenged translation production. TC3, Translation: Computation, Corpora, Cognition, 2(1), 127–145.
Carl, M., & Kay, M. (2011). Gazing and typing activities during translation: A comparative study of translation units of professional and student translators. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 56(4), 952–975. https://doi.org/10.7202/1011262ar.
Carl, M., & Schaeffer, M. J. (2017). Why translation is difficult: A corpus-based study of non-literality in post-editing and from-scratch translation. Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication Studies, 56, 43–57.
Carl, M., & Schaeffer, M. J. (2018). The development of the TPR-DB as grounded theory method. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 1(1), 168–193. https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00008.car.
Carl, M., Aizawa, A., Yamada, M. (2016a) English-to-Japanese translation vs. dictation vs. post-editing. In Lrec 2016 Proceedings: Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 4024–4031).
Carl, M., Bangalore, S., & Schaeffer, M. (Eds.). (2016b). New directions in empirical translation process research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB (New Frontiers in Translation Studies). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4.
Čulo, O., et al. (2014). The influence of post-editing on translation strategies. In S. O’Brien, L. W. Balling, M. Carl, M. Simard, & L. Specia (Eds.), Post-editing of machine translation: Processes and applications (pp. 200–218). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Daems, J. et al. (2015). The impact of machine translation error types on post-editing effort indicators. In S. O’Brien, M. Simard (Eds.), Fourth workshop on post-editing technology and practice, proceedings (pp. 31–45). Association for Machine Translation in the Americas. Available at: http://amtaweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/MTSummitXV_WPTP4Proceedings.pdf
Daems, J., et al. (2017). Identifying the machine translation error types with the greatest impact on post-editing effort. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(August), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01282.
Deane-Cox, S. (2014). Remembering Oradour-sur-Glane: Collective memory in translation. Translation and Literature, 23, 272–283.
Diaz Cintas, J. (2009). New trends in audiovisual translation. Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Doherty, S., O’Brien, S., & Carl, M. (2010). Eye tracking as an automatic MT evaluation technique. Machine Translation, 24(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-010-9070-9.
Dragsted, B. (2004). Segmentation in translation and translation memory systems: An empirical investigation of cognitive segmentation and effects of integrating a TM system into the translation process. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Dragsted, B. (2005). Segmentation in translation: Differences across levels of expertise and difficulty. Target: International Journal on Translation Studies, 17(1), 49–70.
Dragsted, B. (2010). Coordination of reading and writing processes in translation: An eye on unchartered territory. In G. M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dragsted, B., & Hansen, I. G. (2008). Comprehension and production in translation: A pilot study on segmentation and the coordination of Reading and writing processes. In S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen, & I. M. Mees (Eds.), Looking at eyes. Eye-tracking studies of reading and translation processing (pp. 1–21). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur (Copenhagen Studies in Language.
Eisele, A. et al. (2008). Hybrid machine translation architectures within and beyond the EuroMatrix project. In: J. Hutchins, & W. V. Hahn (Eds.), Hybrid MT methods in practice: Their use in multilingual extraction, cross-language information retrieval, multilingual summarization, and applications in hand-held devices (pp. 27–34). Proceedings of the European Machine Translation Conference. Hamburg, Germany, HITEC e.V., European Association for Machine Translation.
Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fox, W. (2018) Can integrated titles improve the viewing experience?: Investigating the impact of subtitling on the reception and enjoyment of film using eye tracking and questionnaire data. Language Science Press.
Gieshoff, A. C. (2018). The impact of audio-visual speech input on work-load in simultaneous interpreting. Phd Thesis. Germersheim: Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
Göpferich, S. (2008). Translationsprozessforschung: Stand – Methoden – Perspektiven. Tübingen: Narr.
Hansen-Schirra, S. (2017). EEG and universal language processing in translation. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 232–247). Malden/Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Heyn, M. (1998). Translation memories: Insights and prospects. In L. Bowker et al. (Eds.), Unity in diversity? Current trends in translation studies (pp. 123–136). Manchester: St. Jerome.
Hutchins, W. J., & Somers, H. L. (1992). An introduction to machine translation. London: Academic.
Jakobsen, A. L. (2011). Tracking translators’ keystrokes and eye movements with Translog. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research. Integrative approaches in translation studies (pp. 37–55). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jakobsen, A. L., & Jensen, K. T. H. (2008). Eye movement behaviour across four different types of reading task. In S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen, & I. M. Mees (Eds.), Looking at eyes. Eye-tracking studies of reading and translation processing (pp. 103–124). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Jensen, K. T. H., Sjørup, A. C., & Winther Balling, L. (2009). Effects of L1 syntax on L2 translation. In F. Alves, S. Göpferich, & I. M. Mees (Eds.), Methodology, technology and innovation in translation process research: A tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen (pp. 319–336). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
John, B. E. (1996). Typist: A theory of performance in skilled typing. Human-Computer Interaction, 11, 321–355.
Kim, H., Lee, J.-H., & Na, S.-H. (2017). Predictor-estimator using multilevel task learning with stack propagation for neural quality estimation. Proceedings of the Second Conference on Machine Translation, 2(2016), 562–568. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-4763.
Klubička, F., Toral, A., & Sánchez-Cartagenac, V. M. (2017). Fine-grained human evaluation of neural versus phrase-based machine translation. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 108, 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1515/pralin-2017-0014.
Koponen, M. et al. (2012). Post-editing time as a measure of cognitive effort. In Proceedings of the AMTA 2012 workshop on post-editing technology and practice (WPTP 2012) (pp. 11–20). San Diego. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00947.x.Pupillometry.
Krings, H. P. (1986). Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht: eine empirische Untersuchung zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Französischlernern. Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag.
Lacruz, I., Denkowski, M., Lavie, A. (2014). Cognitive demand and cognitive effort in post-editing. In Proceedings of the AMTA 2014 workshop on post-editing technology and practice (pp. 73–84).
Läubli, S. (2014). Statistical modelling of human translation processes. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Läubli, S., & Germann, U. (2016). Statistical modelling and automatic tagging of human translation processes. In M. Carl, S. Bangalore, & M. Schaeffer (Eds.), New directions in empirical translation process research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB (pp. 155–181). Cham: Springer International Publishing (New Frontiers in Translation Studies). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_8.
Lin, D. (1996). On the Structural Complexity of Natural Language Sentences. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Computational Linguistics -, 2:729. Copenhagen, Denmark: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.3115/993268.993295.
Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2006). Reading for repetition and reading for translation: Do they involve the same processes? Cognition, 99(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.012.
Martínez-Gómez, P. et al. (2014). Recognition of translator expertise using sequences of fixations and keystrokes. In ETRA ‘14 Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (pp. 299–302). https://doi.org/10.1145/2578153.2578201.
Martínez-Gómez, P., et al. (2018). Recognition and characterization of translator attributes using sequences of fixations and keystrokes. In C. Walker & F. M. Federici (Eds.), Eye tracking and multidisciplinary studies on translation (pp. 97–120). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Mishra, A., Bhattacharyya, P., Carl, M. (2013) Automatically predicting sentence translation difficulty. In ACL 2013 – 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference. vol 2, (pp. 346–351). Available at: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84907342843&partnerID=tZOtx3y1
Moorkens, J., et al. (2015). Correlations of perceived post-editing effort with measurements of actual effort. Machine Translation. Springer Netherlands, 29(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-015-9175-2.
Nagels, A., et al. (2013). Neural substrates of figurative language during natural speech perception: An fMRI study. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 121. IF: 4,800.
Nitzke, J., Hansen-Schirra, S., & Canfora, C. (2019). Risk management and post-editing competence. Journal of Specialised Translation, (31), 239–259.
O’Brien, S. (2007). Eye-tracking and translation memory matches. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 14(3), 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/09076760708669037.
O’Brien, S. (2011). Towards predicting post-editing productivity. Machine Translation, 25(3), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-011-9096-7.
Orrego-Carmona, D. (2015). The reception of (non) professional subtitling. PhD Thesis. Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
Oster, K. (2018). Lexical activation and inhibition of cognates among translation students. Phd Thesis. Germersheim: Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372.
Reichle, E. D., Warren, T., & McConnell, K. (2009). Using E-Z reader to model the effects of higher level language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.1.
Richter, E. M., Engbert, R., & Kliegl, R. (2006). Current advances in SWIFT. Cognitive Systems Research, 7(1), 23–33.
Ruiz Toral, A. et al. (2018). Translation attaining the unattainable? Reassessing claims of human parity in neural machine translation. In Third conference on machine translation (pp. 113–123). Brussels.
Saikh, T. et al. (2015) Predicting source gaze fixation duration: A machine learning approach. In Proceedings – 2015 international conference on cognitive computing and information processing, CCIP 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCIP.2015.7100708.
Schaeffer, M. J., & Carl, M. (2013). Shared representations and the translation process: A recursive model. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 8(2), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.8.2.03sch.
Schaeffer, M. J., & Carl, M. (2017a). A minimal cognitive model for translating and post-editing. In S. Kurohashi & P. Fung (Eds.), Proceedings of MT summit XVI (pp. 144–155). Japan: International Association for Machine Translation.
Schaeffer, M. J., & Carl, M. (2017b). Language processing and translation: Translation and non-translational language use. In S. Hansen-Schirra, O. Czulo, & S. Hofmann (Eds.), Empirical modelling of translation and interpreting, (Translation and Multilingual Natural Language Processing 7, pp. 117–154). Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1090958.
Schaeffer, M. J., et al. (2016). Measuring cognitive translation effort with activity units. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(2), 331–345.
Schaeffer, M. J., et al. (2017). Reading for translation. In A. L. Jakobsen & B. Mesa-Lao (Eds.), Translation in transition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schilperoord, J. (1996). It’s about time: Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Seubert, S. (2018). Die Verarbeitung von vvisuellen Inforationen beim Simultandolmetschen. Phd Thesis. Germersheim: Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
Snover, M. et al. (2006). A study of translation edit rate with targeted human annotation. In Proceedings of Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (pp. 223–231). https://doi.org/10.1109/CCIP.2015.7100708.
Specia, L. (2011). Exploiting objective annotations for measuring translation post-editing effort. In Proceedings of the 15th conference of the European Association for Machine Translation (pp. 73–80). Leuven.
Tatsumi, M. (2009). Correlation between automatic evaluation metric scores, post-editing speed, and some other factors. In Proceedings of MT Summit XII (pp. 332–339). Available at: http://www.mt-archive.info/MTS-2009-Tatsumi.pdf
van Hell, J. G., & de Groot, A. M. B. (2008). Sentence context modulates visual word recognition and translation in bilinguals. Acta Psychologica, 128, 431–451.
Vieira, L. N. (2014). Indices of cognitive effort in machine translation post-editing. Machine Translation, 28(3–4), 187–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-014-9156-x.
Wang, J. et al. (2018). Alibaba submission for WMT18 quality estimation task. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Shared Task Papers (pp. 809–815). Association for Computational Linguistics. Available at: http://aclweb.org/anthology/W18-6465
Winther Balling, L., Hvelplund, K. T., & Sjørup, A. C. (2014). Evidence of parallel processing during translation. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 59(2), 234–259. https://doi.org/10.7202/1027474ar.
Wu, Y. et al. (2016). ‘Google’s neural machine translation system: Bridging the gap between human and machine translation. ArXiv e-prints. pp. 1–23. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.08144
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Schaeffer, M., Nitzke, J., Hansen-Schirra, S. (2020). Predictive Turn in Translation Studies: Review and Prospects. In: Brunn, S., Kehrein, R. (eds) Handbook of the Changing World Language Map. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02438-3_217
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02438-3_217
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02437-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02438-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences