Machine translation and culture-bound texts in translator education: a pilot study

References

• Allott, N. 2010. Key Terms in Pragmatics. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Bartmiński, J. 2009. Aspects of Cognitive Ethnolinguistics, Translated by Adam Głaz, Jörg Zinken. London: Equinox.
   Google Scholar
• Carl, M., and C. T. Báez. 2019. “Machine Translation Errors and the Translation Process: A Study Across Different Languages.” Journal of Specialised Translation 31:107–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciobanu, D. 2022. “Rule-Based, Statistical and Neural Machine Translation: What Now?“ In The Many Faces of Translation. Machine Translation: Driven by Humans, Powered by Technology, DG TRAD Conference 2021, 8–37. Brussels: European Parliament.
   Google Scholar
• Daems, J. 2022. “Dutch Literary Translators’ Use and Perceived Usefulness of Technology. The Role of Awareness and Attitude.” In Using Technologies for Creative-Text Translation, edited by J. L. Hadley, K. Taivalkoski-Shilov, C. Teixeira, and A. Toral, 40–65. New York and London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003094159-3.
   Google Scholar
• Daems, J., and L. Macken. 2020. “Post-Editing Human Translations and Revising Machine Translations: Impact on Efficiency and Quality.” In Translation Revision And/Or Post-Editing: Industry Practices and Cognitive Processes, edited by M. Koponen, B. Mossop, I. Robert, and G. Scocchera, 50–70. London-and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003096962-5.
   Google Scholar
• Daems, J., S. Vandepitte, R. Hartsuiker, and L. Macken. 2015. “The Impact of Machine Translation Error Types on Post-Editing Effort Indicators.” In Fourth Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice: Proceedings, 31–45. https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/6990271/file/6990287.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Daems, J., S. Vandepitte, R. Hartsuiker, and L. Macken. 2017. “Translation Methods and Experience: A Comparative Analysis of Human Translation and Post-Editing with Students and Professional Translators.” Meta 62 (2): 245–270. https://doi.org/10.7202/1041023ar.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. J. 2004. “Ethnosyntax: Introduction.” In Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture, edited by N. J. Enfield, 5–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199266500.003.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Goodfellow, I., Y. Bengio, and A. Courville. 2018. L’apprentissage profond. Translated by AI and postedited by F. Navarro, S. El Kolei, B. Guedj, and C. Chesneau. Massot Éditions.
   Google Scholar
• Guerberof Arenas, A., and J. Moorkens. 2019. “Machine Translation and Post-Editing Training as Part of a Master’s Programme.” Journal of Specialised Translation 31: 217–238.
   Google Scholar
• Guerberof Arenas, A., and A. Toral. 2022. “Creativity in Translation. Machine Translation as a Constraint for Literary Texts.” Translation Spaces 11 (2): 184–212. https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.21025.gue.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hao, Y., and A. Pym. 2021. “Translation Skills Required by Master’s Graduates for Employment: Which are Needed, Which are Not?” Across Languages and Cultures 22 (2): 158–175. https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2021.00012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hervey, S., and I. Higgins. [1992] 2002. Thinking French Translation. A Course in Translation Method: French to English. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203167120.
   Google Scholar
• Hitchcock, D. 2022. “Critical Thinking.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 Edition), edited by E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/critical-thinking.
   Google Scholar
• Hvelplund, K. T. 2022. “Institutional Translation and the Translation Process. Cognitive Resources, Digital Resources, and Translator Training.” In Institutional Translator Training, edited by T. Svoboda, Ł. Biel, and V. Sosoni, 92–110. London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003225249-7.
   Google Scholar
• ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2015. ISO 17100:2015 Translation Services – Requirements for Translation Services.
   Google Scholar
• ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2017. ISO 18587:2017 Translation Services — Post-Editing of Machine Translation Output — Requirements.
   Google Scholar
• ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2022. ISO/DIS 5060:2022 (En), Translation Services — Evaluation of Translation Output — General Guidance. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:5060:dis:ed-1:v1:en.
   Google Scholar
• Katan, D. [1999] 2004. Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators. 2nd ed. Manchester: St. Jerome.
   Google Scholar
• Kenny, D., edited by 2022. Machine Translation for Everyone: Empowering Users in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Berlin: Language Science Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kornacki, M., and P. Pietrzak. 2021. “New Translator Training Environments: Towards Improving Translation Students’ Digital Resilience.” New Voices in Translation Studies 24:1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Krings, H. P. 2001. Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Postediting Processes. Kent: The Kent State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Łoboda, K. 2021. “Beyond MT Metrics in Specialised Translation: Automated and Manual Evaluation of Machine Translation Output for Freelance Translators and Small LSPs in the Context of EU Documents.” Beyond Philology an International Journal of Linguistics, Literary Studies and English Language Teaching 17 (4): 45–73. https://doi.org/10.26881/bp.2020.4.02.
   Google Scholar
• Lommel, A., M. Popović, and A. Burchardt. 2014. “Assessing Inter-Annotator Agreement for Translation Error Annotation.” In Automatic and Manual Metrics for Operational Translation Evaluation: Workshop Proceedings, edited by K. J. Miller, L. Specia, K. Harris, and S. Bailey, 31–37. mte2014.github.io/MTE2014-Workshop-Proceedings.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Marczak, M. 2018. “Translation Pedagogy in the Digital Age.” Angles 7 (7): 1–19. http://journals.openedition.org/angles/895.
   Google Scholar
• Mastela, O. 2020a. “Retelling Legends and Folk Tales: A Transcreative Approach in the Collaborative Translation Classroom.” Research in Language 18 (2): 151–171. https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.18.2.03.
   Google Scholar
• Mastela, O., ed. 2020b. Retellings of Selected Polish Legends in English: Exercises in Literary Transcreation. Vol. 4. Kraków: Katedra Przekładoznawstwa UJ.
   Google Scholar
• Mastela, O. 2022. “Zaangażowana dydaktyka akademicka i jej wpływ na jakość kształcenia tłumaczy [Engaged didactics and its impact on the quality of translator education].” In Jakość kształcenia akademickiego [The Quality of Academic Teaching], edited by J. M. Bugaj and M. Budzanowska-Drzewiecka, 181–198. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
   Google Scholar
• Mastela, O. 2023. “A Holistic, Interdisciplinary and Socially Engaged Approach to Translator Education: Learning Through Meaningful Projects.” Między Oryginałem a Przekładem 4 ( forthcoming).
   Google Scholar
• Moorkens, J., S. Castilho, F. Gaspari, and S. Doherty, eds. 2018. Translation Quality Assessment: From Principles to Practice. Berlin: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91241-7.
   Google Scholar
• Mossop, B. 2001. Revising and Editing for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.
   Google Scholar
• MQM Core Typology. [Update April 10th] 2023. www.themqm.info/typology/.
   Google Scholar
• Nitzke, J., and S. Hansen-Schirra. 2021. A Short Guide to Post-Editing. Berlin: Language Science Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien, S. 2002. “Teaching Post-Editing: A Proposal for Course Content.” In Proceedings of the 6th EAMT Workshop: Teaching Machine Translation, 99–106. https://aclanthology.org/2002.eamt-1.
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien, S. 2007. “An Empirical Investigation of Temporal and Technical Post-Editing Effort.” Translation & Interpreting Studies 2 (1): 83–136. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.2.1.03ob.
   Google Scholar
• Oppman, A. 1925. Legendy warszawskie. Poznań: Księgarnia św. Wojciecha.
   Google Scholar
• Ozga, K. [2008] 2017. “Chłop i czarnoksiężnik.” In W cieniu Palany Gery: Legendy z okolic Dębicy, edited by K. Ozga, 83–85. 3rd ed. Dębica: Stowarzyszenie Słowian Doliny Wisłoki.
   Google Scholar
• Papineni, K., S. Roukos, T. Ward, and W.-J. Zhu. 2002. “BLEU: A Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation”. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics, 311–318.
   Google Scholar
• Piotrowska, M. 2002. A Compensational Model for Strategy and Techniques in Teaching Translation. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pedagogicznej.
   Google Scholar
• Piotrowska, M. 2022. Translation. Inspirations We Live by. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka. https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381388078.
   Google Scholar
• Popel, M., M. Tomkova, J. Tomek, Ł. Kaiser, J. Uszkoreit, O. Bojar, and Z. Žabokrtský. 2020. “Transforming Machine Translation: A Deep Learning System Reaches News Translation Quality Comparable to Human Professionals.” Nature Communications 11 (1): 4381. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18073-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rak, M. 2015. Kulturemy podhalańskie. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka. https://doi.org/10.12797/9788376386027.
   Google Scholar
• Robert, I. S., I. Schrijver, and J. J. Ureel. 2022a. “Measuring Translation Revision Competence and Post-Editing Competence in Translation Trainees: Methodological Issues.” Perspectives 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2022.2030377.
   Google Scholar
• Robert, I. S., I. Schrijver, and J. J. Ureel. 2022b. “Translation, Translation Revision and Post-Editing Competence Models: Where are We Now?” In The Human Translator in the 2020s, edited by G. Massey, E. Huertas-Barros, and D. Katan, 44–59. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003223344-4.
   Google Scholar
• Robert, I. S., I. Schrijver, and J. J. Ureel. 2023. “Comparing L2 Translation, Translation Revision, and Post-Editing Competences in Translation Trainees. An Exploratory Study into Dutch–French Translation.” Babel 69 (1): 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00307.rob.
   Google Scholar
• Tabakowska, E. 2002. “Bariery kulturowe są zbudowane z gramatyki.” In Przekład – Język – Kultura, edited by R. Lewicki, 25–34. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.
   Google Scholar
• Tamchyna, A. 2020. “Selection of MT Systems in Translation Workflows.” Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas 2: 270–291.
   Google Scholar
• Toral, A., and A. Way. 2018. “What Level of Quality Can Neural Machine Translation Attain on Literary Text?” In Translation Quality Assessment, edited by J. Moorkens, S. Castilho, F. Gaspari, and S. Doherty, 263–287. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91241-7_12.
   Google Scholar
• Toral, A., M. Wieling, and A. Way. 2018. “Post-Editing Effort of a Novel with Statistical and Neural Machine Translation.” Frontiers in Digital Humanities 5:9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdigh.2018.00009.
   Google Scholar
• Vanmassenhove, E., D. Shterionov, and A. Way. 2019. “Lost in Translation: Loss and Decay of Linguistic Richness in Machine Translation.” Proceedings of MT Summit XVII (1): 222–232.
   Google Scholar
• Webster, R., M. Fonteyne, A. Tezcan, L. Macken, and J. Daems. 2020. “Gutenberg Goes Neural: Comparing Features of Dutch Human Translations with Raw Neural Machine Translation Outputs in a Corpus of English Literary Classics.” Informatics 7 (3): 32–52. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics7030032.
   Google Scholar
• Wierzbicka, A. 1997. Understanding Cultures Through Their Key Words. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar