tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8843503.post113696276521210045..comments2010-07-02T08:11:47.799+02:00Jean Véronishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371566141993569983noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8843503.post-69681605000871047362010-01-31T05:21:45.295+01:002010-01-31T05:21:45.295+01:00Hi Language Translation: <br /><br />But it is possible to handle idioms and stylistic expressions with various MT software programs. I do it all the time. The objective is to use the MT software as an assistance tool the human translator. As for cultural aspects, it is possible to handle localization variants within such tools, with varying levels of usability. I have worked in real translation production projects with 30+ versions of MT software (and 2 brand new ones received recently to start trying out), and having used MT to translate a very wide range of topics, domains and document types.<br />see: http://www.proz.com/post/1268576#1268576<br /><br />Many people write in forums that MT should/could/would not work, but those words all clearly indicate to me that those people have never really tried it, or they tried with a free online translator rather than a professional or expert deskstop system designed for the purpose. <br />Would you try and use a 1 or 3 speed bicycle to do the Tour de France. Of course not, you need a 27-speed bike is more appropriate.<br /><br />I always write can/does/makes in my statements about MT, because I do use it and write case studies about my implementations. <br /><br />Jeffjeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17563500748191732915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8843503.post-27277565428028452009-09-26T19:39:01.410+02:002009-09-26T19:39:01.410+02:00Interesting post. Its true that machine translation are increasingly becoming more effective but need to start interpreting idioms and understanding cultural context of text before it could truly replace human translation.language translationhttp://www.wordexpress.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8843503.post-7508672790460530092007-08-28T20:34:00.000+02:002007-08-28T20:34:00.000+02:00Hello Gentlmen,<BR/><BR/>Sorry for breaking in that late - this discussion just got indexed by my Google News tracker.<BR/><BR/>Just wanted to let you know both Voila (tr.voila.fr) and Orange (traduction.orange.fr) are now using original Promt translation service, so the landscape is becoming a little bit more diversified - at least in France.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>Nikolay VasilievNikolayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14982147455230124290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8843503.post-1138005152054784312006-01-23T09:32:00.000+01:002006-01-23T09:32:00.000+01:00Thank you, Jeff.justin barkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05802083243719644274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8843503.post-1137838671075219892006-01-21T11:17:00.000+01:002006-01-21T11:17:00.000+01:00<I>18 January, 2006, justin barker wrote:<BR/>I see no reason however why a translator couldn't be unbalanced semantically and syntactically.</I><BR/><BR/>Syntactic asymmetry is very common. This is why backtranslation techniques are usually discouraged when using MT systems. I wrote an article on using backtranslation. See "Getting Started with Machine Translation" at:<BR/>http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/article50.htm<BR/><BR/>Jeffmtposteditinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16659552946815990770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8843503.post-1137837896510747102006-01-21T11:04:00.000+01:002006-01-21T11:04:00.000+01:00<I>18 January, 2006, justin barker wrote:<BR/>I see no reason however why a translator couldn't be unbalanced semantically and syntactically. (Not that one can really extract any of these categories.)</I><BR/><BR/>See my posting above, on lexical (a)symmetry in MT systems, which provides some points on semantic issues. Semantic variation can be based on the level of precision of the terms that are used versus more general terms which are used to cover more specific terms (for ex: filter to mean both engine oil filter and air filter).<BR/><BR/>Most MT systems do use semantic classes, but to a lesser or greater extent. I conducted an analysis on this between the Reverso v5 system and the PROMT v6 system (both of which are based on a PROMT kernel). This report is available at:<BR/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Reverso_users/ (see message 6)<BR/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PROMT_users/ (see message 7)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jeffmtposteditinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16659552946815990770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8843503.post-1137835969629111382006-01-21T10:32:00.000+01:002006-01-21T10:32:00.000+01:00<I>18 January, 2006, justin barker wrote:<BR/>Actually, I was only wondering in general. One might think that a translator would do equally well in either direction at least on the lexical level. That is to say if the translator lacks a word on either side it may as well lack it for both. </I><BR/><BR/>Justin, I'm going to interpret your use of the word "translator" to be a "machine translation system/software program". It could also be understood to be a human translator, and that merits discussion with regard to your questions as well, but this context seems to be focused on the MT software/systems such as SYSTRAN and Reverso.<BR/><BR/>MT systems are not necessarily equal bi-directionally at a lexical level in their general dictionaries for a few reasons. <BR/><BR/>1) the misnomer of 1-to-1 translation. Although it would be easier to process language if each term had a single exact matching equivalent in the target language, this is often not the case. Multi-referential equivalent are very common. When I was a technical writing and translation trainer at Caterpillar, we came across many examples where the same term is said several ways in the same text. It is possible to say "radiator cap", "filler cap", radiator filler cap", "radiator's filler cap", not to mention specific types like a "locking radiator cap" and even a "thermally locking radiator cap". <BR/><BR/>2) Overlapping meaning for the same term: what do you do when "filler cap" can be used for different contexts "radiator filler cap", "oil filler cap", "engine oil filler cap", "transmission oil filler cap" etc. Same problem with "filter" which can be used in different contexts: "air filter" & "engine air filter", "oil filter" & "engine oil filter" "gasoline filter" etc. If only one translation variant is coded for "filler cap" and "filter", imagine the mess when in an instruction about replacing radiator fluid that the person is told to release the pressure in the of the radiator filler cap and then a couple of lines later is told to remove the filler cap, but the translation cames out as "release the pressure of the radiator cap, and then remove the oil filler cap". <BR/><BR/>and in the opposite direction if you have several variant terms as well:<BR/>bouchon radiateur <BR/>bouchon de radiateur <BR/>bouchon de radiateur d'automobile<BR/>bouchon radiateur à eau voiture <BR/><BR/>A missing entry, or a under-specified entry for the translation in either direction can easily lead to lexical asymetry.<BR/><BR/>3) another issue is variability in spelling of the same word/term in a source language (such as spell-checker, spellchecker and spell checker in English). This means that 1, 2 or 3 of the variants might be coded into the English general dictionary with a single (or several) equivalent French output entry(ies). If all of the variants are coded, then it will provide for high accuracy at the lexical level. Yet, if in the opposition direction (French > Eng) there also happens to be spelling variation, and not all of the variant entries are included, then a mismatch at the lexical level is quite possible. Several articles on lexical variability are available at my website. <BR/><BR/>4) creating a general user dictionary is a very time-consuming and meticulous task. It is important to provide the best coverage of the most frequent terms used, combined with selecting which translation equivalent(s) is/are the best choice(s) to code into the target language field. For example, it is possible to enter in the 8 different meanings of the term "valve" into an MT system used in a automotive/heavy-machinery context because the technical writers and translators will be using all of the different meanings of the term. Yet for a general-use MT system, it is important to choose the most appropriate translation that will have the highest coverage of good understanding by readers/users across a wide variety of fields. The "most appropriate translation" is not a magical formula. Various factors can influence that choice, especially if the word/terms has 2 or even 3 distinct semantic meanings in the target language. So semantic factors come into play, as do frequency of use. An example of this is that it is less interesting to include a term that appears 25 times on a Google search versus a term that appears 4 million times. If you combine all of these factors which influence a single translation direction, and then have to consider them again in creating the dictionary in the opposite direction, it leads to a complex matrix.<BR/><BR/>Achieving symmetry of inclusion and content of lexical entries for bi-directional MT dictionaries is a big task. <BR/>This is true for pre-packaged general use MT dictionaries (which come standard with the tool), domain/topical specialized dictionaries, and custom user dictionaries for major MT software systems. <BR/>A last point to note is that it has not been until very recently that MT software packages have offered features which allow users, as they create a dictionary entry in one directly, to (semi)automatically create the corresponding dictionary entry in the opposition direction. <BR/><BR/>Jeffmtposteditinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16659552946815990770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8843503.post-1137587129035495592006-01-18T13:25:00.000+01:002006-01-18T13:25:00.000+01:00Apologies to all of you. I'm pretty far behind in my responses (I've been very buzy with the <A HREF="http://aixtal.blogspot.com/2006/01/web-surfez-sur-les-nuages.html" REL="nofollow">clouds</A>).<BR/><BR/>Justin, Jeff> My study involved mostly French as a target for obvious reasons of student availability. I have no emprical grounds to assess any kind of symmetry of asymetry in MT systems. One would have to run the expriment in the reverse direction, which I haven't done. however, knowing a little bit about MT and NL systmes in general, I suspect that there are many reasons why we could have asymetry. One of the reasons is that most language-translation pairs in most systems involve English. Therefore the lexicons, compound detection, grammatical rules, etc. are likely to be better for English. My intuition would be that the general trend is a better analysis when English is the source and a better generation with English is the target. Is this true? how do the two factors combine in practice? I have no means to know without running extensive tests.Jean Véronishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371566141993569983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8843503.post-1137583514138703192006-01-18T12:25:00.000+01:002006-01-18T12:25:00.000+01:00Actually, I was only wondering in general. One might think that a translator would do equally well in either direction at least on the lexical level. That is to say if the translator lacks a word on either side it may as well lack it for both. I see no reason however why a translator couldn't be unbalanced semantically and syntactically. (Not that one can really extract any of these categories.)justin barkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05802083243719644274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8843503.post-1137534419742359232006-01-17T22:46:00.000+01:002006-01-17T22:46:00.000+01:00justin barker wrote... <BR/>>>All but the last example target French. I would like to know if a translator works better in one direction than in another. For example, is it possible that Reverso makes more readable translations into french while another translator does a better job targeting English?<BR/><BR/>For a professional translator in either direction, they should not use the Inbound-only push-button online MT systems. They should purchase an MT software package which contains translator-friendly features for translation productivity. Any serious use of MT by a professional translator must include a combination of user dictionary building and MT postediting.<BR/><BR/>2 case studies on MT dictionary building in translation production contexts:<BR/><BR/>http://www.geocities.com/jeffallenpubs/Allen-LI-article-Reverso.pdf<BR/><BR/>http://www.geocities.com/mtpostediting/Jeff-Allen-AMTA2004-paper_v1.01.pdf<BR/><BR/>and all about MT postediting at the site that is dedicated to this topic:<BR/>http://www.geocities.com/mtpostediting/<BR/><BR/>Jeff Allen<BR/>Certified MT Dictionary developermtposteditinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16659552946815990770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8843503.post-1137533503252584742006-01-17T22:31:00.000+01:002006-01-17T22:31:00.000+01:00It is very important to make a distinction between the use of Machine Translation for Inbound translation (content gisting) and the use of it for Outbound translation (translation for publication), the latter being which professional translators do for a living. It is important to note that this article on SYSTRAN and Reverso focuses on the Inbound translation-based MT systems. However, I have always trained professional translators on Outbound translation-featured MT commercial software packages and customized industry-built MT software. And I discourage the use of free online MT systems for any type of Outbound translation activity. A parallel is: Why use Windows Notepad to write a Masters thesis when you can purchase MS Windows with a student discount or install OpenOffice? <BR/><BR/>A 10-15 page powerpoint presentation on the topic of Inbound versus Outbound translation with a indication of each module in several MT software packages (including Reverso and SYSTRAN) per their use for Inbound or Outbound purposes is available at:<BR/>http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/article50.htm<BR/><BR/>Also at that page is a 1-page article entitled "Thinking about Machine Translation" which provides short answers to some key questions over the past 15 years on the debate of MT.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, there is a step-by-step how-to document entitled "Getting Started with Machine Translation" which shows how to transition from the free online MT systems to the packaged software applications which contain translation-friendly features.<BR/><BR/>Jeff Allenmtposteditinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16659552946815990770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8843503.post-1137531819500764302006-01-17T22:03:00.000+01:002006-01-17T22:03:00.000+01:00For a full set of independently written case studies, tips, hints, tricks, and comparison reports concerning both the Reverso (PROMT-based) and SYSTRAN machine translation software packages, please refer to:<BR/><BR/>The Language Software Evaluation/Review site:<BR/>http://www.geocities.com/langtecheval/<BR/><BR/>The MT Tips site:<BR/>http://www.geocities.com/jeffallenpubs/MT-tips.htm<BR/><BR/>MT Forum<BR/>http://www.translators.com<BR/>Menu bar: Community > Discussion Forums<BR/>Go to Machine Translation Forum<BR/><BR/>MT user forums on Yahoo Groups<BR/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Reverso_users/<BR/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SYSTRAN_users/<BR/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PROMT_users/<BR/><BR/>Jeff AllenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8843503.post-1137401853194155872006-01-16T09:57:00.000+01:002006-01-16T09:57:00.000+01:00All but the last example target French. I would like to know if a translator works better in one direction than in another. For example, is it possible that Reverso makes more readable translations into french while another translator does a better job targeting English?justin barkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05802083243719644274noreply@blogger.com