Postediting machine translation output: subject-matter experts versus professional translators

References

• Bowker, L. (2005). Productivity vs quality: A pilot study on the impact of translation memory systems. Localisation Focus, 4(1), 13–20.
   Google Scholar
• Bowker, L., & Ehgoetz, M. (2007). Exploring user acceptance of machine translation output: A recipient evaluation. In D. Kenny & K. Ryou (Eds.), Across boundaries: International perspectives on translation studies (pp. 209–224). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Chang-Meadows, S. (2008, October). MT errors in CH-to-EN MT systems: User feedback. Paper presented at AMTA-2008. MT at work: Proceedings of the eighth conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, Waikiki, Hawai.
   Google Scholar
• Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of translation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamin's.
   Google Scholar
• Colina, S. (2008). Translation quality evaluation. The Translator, 14(1), 97–134. doi:10.1080/13556509.2008.10799251
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Almeida, G., & O'Brien, S. (2010, May). Analysing postediting performance: Correlations with years of translation experience. Paper presented at the 14th annual conference of the EAMT, St. Raphael. Retrieved from http://www.mtarchive.info/EAMT-2010-Almeida.pdf
   Google Scholar
• D'Hulst, J. (1997). Focus on the target text. Towards a functional model for translation quality assessment. In K. Kinga & J. Kohn (Eds.), Transferre necesse est (pp. 102–107). Budapest: Scholastica.
   Google Scholar
• Doherty, S. et al. (2013). Mapping the industry: Findings on translation technologies and quality assessment. European Commission Seventh Framework Programme. Retrieved from http://www.qt21.eu/launchpad/sites/default/files/QTLP_Survey2i.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1997). Cognitive and developmental factors in expert performance. In P. J. Feltovich, K. M. Ford, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Expertise in context: Human and machine (pp. 3–41). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Federico, M., Cattelan, A., & Trombetti, M. (2012, October). Measuring user productivity in machine translation enhanced computer assisted translation. Paper presented at AMTA-2012: Proceedings of the tenth conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, San Diego, California.
   Google Scholar
• Fiederer, R., & O'Brien, S. (2009). Quality and machine translation: A realistic objective?. Journal of Specialised Translation, 11, 52–74.
   Google Scholar
• García, I. (2010). Is machine translation ready yet?. Target, 22(1), 7–21. doi:10.1075/target.22.1.02gar
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaspari, F., Toral, A., Naskar, S.K., Groves, D., & Way, A. (2014). Perception vs reality: Measuring translation postediting productivity. In S. O'Brien, M. Simard, & L. Specia (Eds.), Proceedings of the third workshop on postediting technology and practice (WPTP-3) (pp. 60–72).
   Google Scholar
• Guerberof, A. (2009). Productivity and quality in the post-editing of outputs from translation memories and machine translation. Localisation Focus. The International Journal of Localisation, 7(1), 11–21.
   Google Scholar
• Guerberof, A. (2012). Productivity and quality in the postediting of outputs from translation memories and machine translation. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona.
   Google Scholar
• Guerra Martínez, L. (2003). Human translation versus machine translation and full postediting of raw machine translation output (Unpublished master's thesis). Dublin City University, Dublin.
   Google Scholar
• House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited (Vol. 410). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Izwaini, S. (2006, October). Problems of Arabic machine translation: Evaluation of three systems: The challenge of Arabic for GLP/MT. Paper presented at the international conference at the British Computer Society, London. Retrieved from http://www.mt-archive.info/BCS-2006-Izwaini.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jääskeläinen, R. (1989). Translation assignment in professional vs. non-professional translation: A think-aloud protocol study. In C. Séguinot (Ed.), The translation process (pp. 87–98). Toronto: H. G. Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Joscelyne, A., & Brace, C. (2010). A TAUS report, postediting in practice. Netherlands: De Rijp.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser-Cooke, M. (1994). Translatorial expertise – a cross-cultural phenomenon from an inter-disciplinary perspective. In M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker, & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation studies. An interdiscipline (pp. 135–139). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Lagoudaki, E. (2006). Translation memories survey 2006. London: Imperial College.
   Google Scholar
• Lauscher, S. (2000). Translation quality assessment. The Translator, 6(2), 149–168. doi:10.1080/13556509.2000.10799063
   Google Scholar
• Lörscher, W. (1991). Translation performance, translation process, and translation strategies. Tübingen: Narr.
   Google Scholar
• Marcu, D. (2001, July). Towards a unified approach to memory-and statistical-based machine translation. Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of Association for Computational Linguistics, 386–393.
   Google Scholar
• Nida, E. (1964). Toward a science of translation. Leiden: Brill.
   Google Scholar
• O'Brien, S. (2006). Eye-tracking and translation memory matches. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 14(3), 185–205. doi:10.1080/09076760708669037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Brien, S. (2012). Towards a dynamic quality evaluation model for translation. Journal of Specialized Translation, 17, 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• O'Brien, S., O'Hagan, M., & Flanagan, M. (2010, August). Keeping an eye on the UI design of translation memory: How do translators use the ‘concordance’ feature?. Paper presented at the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, Delft, the Netherlands. Retrieved from http://doras.dcu.ie/16693
   Google Scholar
• OPTIMALE Synthesis Report. (2012). The OPTIMALE employer survey and consultation. LLP on optimizing professional translator training in a multilingual Europe.
   Google Scholar
• Oxford Learner's Online Dictionary (http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com). (2015, April 1).
   Google Scholar
• Palumbo, G. (2009). Key terms in translation studies. London and New York: Continuum Int. Publ. Group.
   Google Scholar
• Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T., & Zhu, W. J. (2002). BLEU: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Philadelphia, 311–318.
   Google Scholar
• Pym, A. (2009). Using process studies in translator training: Self-discovery through lousy experiments. In S. Göpferich, F. Alves, & I. M. Mees (Eds.), Methodology, technology and innovation in translation process research (pp. 135–156). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Pym, A. (2011). Translation research terms. A tentative glossary for moments of perplexity and dispute. In A. Pym (Ed.), Translation research projects 3 (pp. 75–110). Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.
   Google Scholar
• Schäfer, F. (2003). MT postediting: How to shed light on the ‘unknown task’: Experiences at SAP [article]. Retrieved from http://www.mt-archive.info/CLT-2003-Schaefer.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Séguinot, C. (2000). Knowledge, expertise, and theory in translation. In A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo San Salvador, & Y. Gambier (Eds.), Translation in context (pp. 87–104). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Shreve, G. M. (2002). Knowing translation: Cognitive and experiential aspects of translation expertise from the perspective of expertise studies. In A. Riccardi (Ed.), Translation studies: Perspectives on an emerging discipline (pp. 150–171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• TAUS Report. (2006). A TAUS report: Putting MT into work. Washington DC.
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira, C. (2014). Perceived vs. measured performance in the postediting of suggestions from machine translation and translation memories. In S. O'Brien, M. Simard & L. Specia (Eds.), Proceedings of the third workshop on postediting technology and practice (WPTP-3) (pp. 45–59).
   Google Scholar
• Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1989). Professional vs. non-professional translation: A think-aloud protocol study. In C. Séguinot (Ed.), The translation process (pp. 73–85). Toronto: H. G. Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Vaezian, H. (2010). Google translator toolkit in translation classroom. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Yamada, M. (2011). Revising text: An empirical investigation of revision and the effects of integrating a TM and MT system into the translation process (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rikkyo University, Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Zuo, L. (2010, November). Machine translation from English to Chinese: A study of Google's performance with the UN documents [Abstract]. Paper presented at AMTA 2010: The Ginth conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, Denver, Colorado.
   Google Scholar