A Survey of Translation Learners’ Uses and Perceptions of Neural Machine Translation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1311.34Keywords:
Neural Machine Translation, translation teaching, translation technology, sustainabilityAbstract
This paper reports a questionnaire-based survey that was designed to investigate how a group of Chinese translation learners used and perceived Neural Machine Translation (NMT), with a view to providing pedagogical implications for translation instruction which is being confronted with the AI-powered translation technology. 326 second- and third-year college students, who were translation learners as well as English majors from the same university in China participated in the survey. They reported high frequency of NMT use in their translation learning as well as English major learning. Instead of directly borrowing the NMT output, most of them post-edited it and/or used it as inspiration to accomplish their translation tasks. Although they evaluated NMT in a positive way and held an optimistic view toward the future of translation career, they expressed varying degrees of worry and anxiety toward their future employment and toward the use of NMT in the process of the translation learning. They clearly articulated the needs for NMT instruction in translation courses. Based on these findings, this paper proposes several ways to help reduce the learners’ worry and anxiety in translation instruction.
References
Arenas, A., & Moorkens, J. (2019). Machine translation and post-editing training as part of a master’s programme. Journal of Specialised Translation, 31, 217-238.
Bentivogli, L., et al. (2016). Neural versus phrase-based machine translation quality: A case study. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608, 04631, 2016.
Cadwell, P., et al. (2016). Human factors in machine translation and post-editing among institutional translators. Translation Spaces, 5(2), 1-34. doi: 10.1075/ts.5.2.04cad.
Cadwell, P., O’Brien, S., & Teixeira, C. S. C. (2018). Resistance and accommodation: Factors for the (non-) adoption of machine translation among professional translators. Perspectives - Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 26(3), 301-321. doi: 10.1080/0907676X.2017.1337210.
Daems, J. (2017). Translation methods and experience: A comparative analysis of human translation and post-editing with students and professional translators. Meta, 62(2), 245-270.
Daems, J., et al. (2017a). Identifying the machine translation error types with the greatest impact on post-editing effort. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. Retrieved March 9, 2019, from https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01282
Daems, J., De Clercq, O., & Macken L. (2017b). Translationese and post-editese: How comparable is comparable quality? Linguistica Antverpiensia, 16, 89-103.
ELIA et al. (2019). 2018 language industry survey -- Expectations and concerns of the European language industry. Retrieved March 9, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2017_language_industry_survey_report_en.pdf
English Section of the National Steering Committee for the Instruction of Foreign Language Programs in Institutions of Higher Learning (2000). English syllabus for English majors in colleges and universities. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Feng, Q., & Zhang, H. (2015). A study on the training of post editors in the context of global language service industry. Foreign Language World, (1), 65-72.
Gaspari, F., Almaghout, H., & Doherty, S. (2015). A survey of machine translation competences: Insights for translation technology educators and practitioners. Perspectives - Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 23, 1-26. doi: 10.1080/0907676X. 2014.979842.
Ifeng. (2018). English Department freshmen worries about dropping out of school when AI-empowered translation invades the campus. Retrieved August 25, 2019, from http://tech.ifeng.com/a/20180914/45167037_0.shtml
Isabelle, P., Cherry, C., & Foster, G. (2017). A challenge set approach to evaluating machine translation. arXiv:1704.07431v3 [cs.CL], 1-27.
Jiao, Q. G., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). The impact of information technology on library anxiety: The role of computer attitudes. Information Technology and Libraries, 23(4), 138-144.
Joanna, G. (2011). An empirical study of professional translators' attitudes, use and awareness of Web 2.0 technologies, and implications for the adopting of emerging technologies and trends. Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series - Themes in Translation Studies, 10, 195-217.
Klubička, F., Toral, A., & Sánchez-Cartagena, V. M. (2017). Fine-grained human evaluation of neural versus phrasebased machine translation. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, (108), 121-132.
Koehn, P., & Knowles, R. (2017). Six challenges for neural machine translation. Thang Luong et al., (eds) (2017). Proceedings of the first workshop on Neural Machine Translation, Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics, 28–39.
Liu, K., Kwok, H. L., Liu, J., & Cheung, A. K. F. (2022). Sustainability and influence of machine translation: Perceptions and attitudes of translation instructors and learners in Hong Kong. Sustainability, 14(6399), 1-29. Retrieved February 10, 2023, from https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116399
López-Bonilla, J. M., & López-Bonilla, L. M. (2012). Validation of an information technology anxiety scale in undergraduates. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), E56–E58.
Man, D., et al. (2020). Translation technology adoption: Evidence from a postgraduate programme for student translators in China. Perspectives - Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 28(2), 253-270.
Memmedova, K., & Selahattin, E. L. (2018). Effects of the technology use on anxiety and aggression levels of youth conducting their higher education studies abroad. Quality & Quantity, 52, Supplement 1, 501–507.
Moorkens, J. (2018). What to expect from Neural Machine Translation: A practical in-class translation evaluation exercise. Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12(4), 375-387.
PACTE. (2018). Competence levels in translation: Working towards a European framework. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12(2), 111–131. doi:10.1080/1750399x.2018.1466093.
Pym, A. (2013). Translation skill-sets in a machine-translation age. Meta, 58(3), 487-503.
Qin, Y. (2018). An analytical study of neural network machine translation and its impacts on translation teaching. Technology Enhanced Foreign Language Education, (2), 51-56.
Rossi, C., & Chevrot, J-P. (2019). Uses and perceptions of Machine Translation at the European Commission. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 31, 177-200.
Steering Committee of Ministry of Education for the Instruction in Institutions of Higher Learning. (2018). National standards for teaching quality of undergraduate majors in colleges and universities. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Tezcan, A., Hoste, V., & Macken, L. (2019). Estimating post-editing time using a gold-standard set of machine translation errors. Computer Speech and Language, 55, 120-144.
Wang, H. (2017). Collaborative innovation and standardized development of language services: An overview of 2016 China Language Service Industry Conference and China Translators Association Annual Conference. Chinese Translators Journal, (1), 78-82.
Wang, J., Li, D., & Li, L. (2018). Internet translation in the context of big data: Concept of open source and innovation of modes. Chinese Translators Journal, (2), 78-82.
Wu, Y., et al. (2016). Google’s neural machine translation system: Bridging the gap between human and machine translation. arXiv:1609.08144v2 [cs.CL], 1-23.
Ye, Z. (2017). Thinking of Steiner again: Reflections at the moment when the new version of Google Translation was born. (2017). Chinese Translators Journal, (1), 89-91.
Zaretskaya, A., Pastor, G. C., & Seghiri, M. (2015). Translators' requirements for translation technologies: A user survey. Retrieved March 10, 2019, from https://www.researchgate.net
Zhu, C. (2018). The machine to replace human beings as a translator? A discussion of the relationship between science and humanity in the cultivation of translators and interpreters. Foreign Language and Literature, 34(3), 101-109.
