Conclusion From the pilot study it cannot be firmly established that the use of MOC, whether or not in combination with other translation aids, decreases the overall number of linguistic errors in translation. The high number of reference errors in TM translations could be explained by the use of decontextualized TM content: while translating students may lose sight of target text coherence. Under the different translation conditions (dictionary only, dictionary+MOC, TM only, TM+MOC), reference errors ranked first in TM only translations and orthography in TM+MOC, dictionary only and dictionary+MOC translations. The most common linguistic errors were orthography (typos and compound nouns) and reference (coherence). Preliminary results There was a small difference in linguistic errors in MOC-based versus non MOC-based translations. Results could be analyzed statistically using a T-test. One annotator error-annotated the translations based on English-Dutch annotation guidelines (Daems & Macken, 2013) and the MeLLANGE error typology (Kübler et al, 2016). Methodology 11 master students taking a specialized legal translation course translated text fragments from English into Dutch using a bilingual English-Dutch dictionary or a TM and a self-compiled monolingual original corpus (MOC). Furthermore, their contextualized nature may help in making correct linguistic (translation) choices, contrary to the decontextualized input of TMs (Jiménez-Crespo, 2009). Early research by Bowker (1998) shows that MOC have a positive effect on, among other things, idiomaticity.
corpora containing texts originally written by native speakers) generates fewer linguistic errors in translated texts than translations executed without MOC. Purpose In addition to the translation aids mentioned above, we aim to assess whether the use of monolingual original corpora (henceforth MOC, i.e.
In RBMT many more lexical choice errors occur than in SMT. However, in post-edited MT syntactic errors are common (Daems et al, 2013). The most common (linguistic) acceptability error types differ per translation aid: in translation without aids style and register errors are more common than in post-edited MT. (Guerberof, 2009) (2) English-Dutch translation without aids and post-edited MT (Daems et al, 2013), as well as statistical MT (SMT) and rule-based MT (RBMT) (Tezcan et al, 2018), contain more (linguistic) acceptability errors than adequacy errors. Studies show that (1) when comparing English-Spanish translation without aids, TM translation and MT translation, TM translation contains more (linguistic) acceptability errors. They include different types of linguistic errors (e.g. Acceptability errors relate to the target text only (Daems et al, 2014, p. Adequacy errors relate to the relationship between source and target text. Such error taxonomies often distinguish between adequacy and acceptability errors (Daems et al, 2013 2014). Translation Quality Assessment, Translation Error Taxonomies, CAT tools, Translation Memories (TMs), Monolingual Corpora, Language for Specific Purposes (LSP)ĪBSTRACT: The impact of dictionaries, translation memories and monolingual corpora on linguistic errors in translated language for specific purposes Theoretical background Error taxonomies are widely used in research involving translations executed with or without translation aids, such as machine translation (MT) engines and translation memories (TMs) (Guerberof, 2009 Daems et al, 2013 2014 Tezcan et al, 2018).
0 kommentar(er)
