Nos travaux

Stage en cours au LIG : Nicolas Becker (étudiant de M2 TSM)

Ce stage, financé par le Pôle Grenoble Cognition, nous permet de réfléchir à l’évaluation de la traduction automatique du point de vue du traducteur et de l’apprenti traducteur, tout en comparant des sorties de plusieurs systèmes, statistiques et neuronaux.

Ce projet s’appuie conjointement sur l’expertise de l’équipe GETALP du LIG, qui développe ses propres systèmes de traduction automatique et sait en faire une évaluation automatique fine, et sur les travaux de traductologues de l’ILCEA4 qui s’intéressent aux usages et perceptions de la traduction automatique.

Le stage est co-encadré par Emmanuelle Esperança-Rodier (LIG) et Caroline Rossi (ILCEA4).

Participation confirmée à la conférence : Translating and the Computer 39 (Londres, 16-17 novembre 2017)

Evaluation of NMT and SMT systems : A study on uses and perceptions

Statistical and neural approaches have permitted fast improvement in the quality of machine translation, but we are yet to discover how those technologies can best “serve translators and end users of translations” (Kenny, 2017). To address human issues in machine translation, we propose an interdisciplinary approach linking Translation Studies, Natural Language Processing and Philosophy of Cognition. Our collaborative project is a first step in connecting sound knowledge of Machine Translation (MT) systems to a reflection on their implications for the translator. It focuses on the most recent Statistical MT (SMT) and Neural MT (NMT) systems, and their impact on the translator’s activity. BTEC-corpus machine translations, from in-house SMT and NMT systems, are subjected to a comparative quantitative analysis, based on BLEU, TER (Translation Edit Rate) and the modified version of METEOR from the LIG (Servan & al, 2016). Then, we qualitatively analyse translation errors from linguistic criteria (Vilar, 2006) or the MQM (Multidimensional Quality Metrics) using LIG tools, to determine for each MT systems, which syntactic patterns imply translation errors and which error type is mainly made. We finally assess translators’ interactions with the main error types in a short rating task, completed by 15 trainee translators.

Participation confirmée à la conférence : Translation and Disruption: Global and local perspectives (Portsmouth, le 4 novembre 2017)

http://www.port.ac.uk/translation/events/conference/

Notre résumé :

Uses and perceptions of Machine Translation at the European Commission

Current research on translation technology seeks to integrate physical, cognitive and organisational ergonomics (Lavault-Olléon, 2011) and uses insights from the situated cognition paradigm (Risku, 2010) to bring together social and technical perspectives on fastly-evolving human-computer interactions (Cadwell et al. 2016). Even though these trends imply that a wider variety of professional contexts should be considered, studies of “translating institutions” are still scarce (Koskinen, 2008).

This paper reports on a three-week research stay in the French language department of the European Commission (DGT-Fr2), aimed at understanding current uses and perceptions of MT within Europe’s biggest translation institution.

Based on our daily observations as well as on 10 semi-directed interviews, we established a survey which we tested among French translators before translating it into English and submitting it to all DGT translators.

The 89 answers are analysed with a view to establishing a composite score that could be used as a reliable index of technology acceptance, thus accounting for perceived usefulness and usage intention (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000) in various ways.

We provide illustrations of what observed patterns actually imply, in the form of qualitative analyses of the translators’ answers to open questions, as well as their comments.

Bibliography

Cadwell, Patrick, Sheila Castilho, Sharon O’Brien, and Linda Mitchell. 2016. Human factors in machine translation and post-editing among institutional translators. Translation Spaces, 5 (2): 222 –243. DOI: 10.1075/ts.5.2.04cad

Koskinen, Kaisa. 2008. Translating Institutions: An Ethnographic Study of EU Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Lavault-Olleon, Elisabeth. 2011. “Une introduction à la problématique ≪ Traduction et Ergonomie ≫ [Introducing Translation and Ergonomics].” ILCEA Traduction et Ergonomie. Accessed June 14, 2017. https://ilcea.revues.org/1118.

Risku, Hanna. 2010. “A Cognitive Scientific View on Technical Communication and Translation: Do Embodiment and Situatedness Really Make a Difference? Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 22 (01): 94–111. DOI: 10.1075/target.22.1.06ris

Venkatesh, Viswanath and Fred D. Davis. 2000. « A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies ». Management science 46 (2): 186–204.