English-Turkish Literary Translation Through Human-Machine Interaction

Mehmet Şahin; Sabri Gürses

doi:10.5565/rev/tradumatica.284

English-Turkish Literary Translation Through Human-Machine Interaction

Authors

Mehmet Şahin Boğaziçi University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9077-1241
Sabri Gürses https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6452-5426

PDF

Abstract

This article investigates perceptions of technology-mediated translations of literary texts by two groups: translation students and professional literary translators. The participants post-edited an excerpt from a classic Dickens novel into Turkish using a machine translation (MT) system of their choice. The analysis of the post-edited texts, participants’ answers to survey questions, and interviews with professional translators suggest that MT is currently a long way from being an essential part of any literary translation practice for the English–Turkish language pair. Translators’ interactions with MT and negative attitudes toward it may change in a positive direction as MT improves and translation practice evolves.

Keywords

literary translation, machine translation, post-editing, human-computer interaction, translation technology

References

Auerbach, C.; Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. New York [etc.]: New York University.

Balashov, Y. (2020). The Translator’s Extended Mind. Minds and Machines, v. 30, n. 3, pp. 349-383. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09536-5>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Besacier, L. (2014). Machine translation for literature: a pilot study (Traduction automatisée d'une œuvre littéraire: une étude pilote). In: Proceedings of TALN 2014 (Volume 2: Short Papers). Marseille: Association pour le Traitement Automatique des Langues, pp. 389–394. <https://aclanthology.org/F14-2001/>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Beylard-Ozeroff, A.; Králová, J.; Moser-Mercer, B. (eds.). (1998). Translators’ Strategies and Creativity: Selected Papers from the 9th International Conference on Translation and Interpreting, Prague, September 1995: In honor of Jiří Levý and Anton Popovič (Vol. 27). Amsterdam [etc.]: John Benjamins. <https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.27>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Boase-Beier, J. (2011). A critical introduction to translation studies. London [etc.]: Continuum.

Bundgaard, K.; Christiensen, T. P.; Schjoldager, A. (2016). Translator-computer interaction in action–an observational process study of computer-aided translation. Jostrans, The Journal of Specialised Translation, n. 25, pp. 106-130. <https://www.jostrans.org/issue25/art_bundgaard.pdf>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Cadwell, P.; Castilho, S.; O'Brien, S.; Mitchell, L. (2016). Human factors in machine translation and post-editing among institutional translators. Translation Spaces, v. 5, n. 2, pp. 222-243. <https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.5.2.04cad>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Delisle, J. (1988). Translation: An Interpretive Approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.

Eytinge, S. (1867). Pip and The Convict. The Victorian Web. <https://victorianweb.org/art/illustration/eytinge/98.html>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Guerberof-Arenas, A.; Toral, A. (2020). The impact of post-editing and machine translation on creativity and reading experience. Translation Spaces, v. 9, n. 2, pp. 255–282. <https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.20035.gue>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Hadley, J. (2020). Literary machine translation: Are the computers coming for our jobs? Counterpoint, n. 4, pp. 14-18. <https://www.academia.edu/44701250/Literary_machine_translation_Are_the_computers_coming_for_our_jobs>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Horenberg, L. W. (2019). Using CAT in Literary Translation-How Tools May Support Translators in Source-Text Analysis, Translation and Retranslation: A Case Study of ‘Mr Loveday’s Little Outing’ [Master's thesis]. Utrecht University. <https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/383930>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Jones, R.; Irvine, A. (2013). The (un) faithful machine translator. In: Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Language Technology for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, and Humanities, edited by Piroska Lendvai and Kalliopi Zervanou, 96–101. Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.

Kenny, D.; Winters, M. (2020). Machine translation, ethics and the literary translator’s voice. Translation Spaces, v. 9, n. 1, pp. 123-149. <https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.00024.ken>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Laviosa, S. (2002). Corpus-based translation studies: theory, findings, applications (Vol. 17). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Malmkjær, K. (2019). Translation and Creativity. New York [etc.]: Routledge.

Moorkens, J.; Lewis, D. (2019). Research questions and a proposal for the future governance of translation data. Jostrans, Journal of Specialised Translation, n. 32, pp. 2-25. <https://jostrans.org/issue32/art_moorkens.pdf>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Moorkens, J.; O’Brien, S. (2015). Post-Editing Evaluations: Trade-Offs between Novice and Professional Participants. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation. Antalya: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 75-81. <http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W15-4910>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Moorkens, J.; Toral, A.; Castilho, S.; Way, A. (2018). Translators’ perceptions of literary post-editing using statistical and neural machine translation. Translation Spaces, v. 7, n. 2, pp. 240-262. <https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.18014.moo>. [Accessed: 20211115].

O'Brien, S. (2012). Translation as human–computer interaction. Translation Spaces, v. 1, n. 1, pp. 101-122. <https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.1.05obr>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Olohan, M. (2021a). Post-editing: A Genealogical Perspective on Translation Practice. In: Bisiada, M. (ed.) Empirical Studies in Translation and Discourse. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 1-26 <https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4450077>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Olohan, M. (2021b). Translation and Practice Theory. London: Routledge. <https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315514772>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently? On the horizon. <https://marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf>. [Accessed: 20211115]

Reynolds, M. (2016). Translation: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University.

Robinson, D. (1998). Cyborg Translation. <http://home.olemiss.edu/~djr/pages/writer/articles/html/cyborg.html>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Rojo, A. (2017). The Role of Creativity. In: Schwieter, J. W.; Ferreira, A. (eds.). The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 350-368 <https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch19>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Rothwell, A. (2018). CAT tools and creativity: Retranslating Zola’s La Joie de vivre. Oxford: Oxford University.

Ruokonen, M.; Koskinen, K. (2017). Dancing with technology: translators’ narratives on the dance of human and machinic agency in translation work. The Translator, v. 23, n. 3, pp. 310-323. <https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2017.1301846>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Shove, E.; Pantzar, M.; Watson, M. (2012). The Dynamics of Social Practice. London: SAGE.

Slessor, S. (2020). Tenacious technophobes or nascent technophiles? A survey of the technological practices and needs of literary translators. Perspectives, v. 28, n. 2, pp. 238-252. <https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1645189>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Summers, C. (2020). Authorship. In: Baker, M.; Salhanda, G. (eds.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 35-39.

Şahin, M. (2016). Translation Technologies for a Less Commonly Translated Language: Promises and Challenges. Translatologia, n. 1, pp. 1-21. <https://www.academia.edu/30585370/Translation_Technologies_for_a_Less_Commonly_Translated_Language_Promises_and_Challenges>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Şahin, M.; Dungan, N. (2014). Translation testing and evaluation: A study on methods and needs. Translation & Interpreting, v. 6, no. 2, pp. 67-90. http://10.12807/ti.106202.2014.a05>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Şahin, M.; Gürses, G. (2019). Would MT kill creativity in literary retranslation? In: Proceedings of the Qualities of Literary Machine Translation. Dublin: European Association for Machine Translation, pp. 26-34. <https://aclanthology.org/volumes/W19-73/>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Taivalkoski-Shilov, K. (2019). Ethical issues regarding machine (-assisted) translation of literary texts. Perspectives, v. 27, n. 5, pp. 689-703. <https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1520907>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Tezcan, A.; Daems, J.; Macken, L. (2019). When a `sport' is a person and other issues for NMT of novels. In: Proceedings of the Qualities of Literary Machine Translation. Dublin: European Association for Machine Translation, pp. 40-49. <https://aclanthology.org/volumes/W19-73/>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Toral, A. (2019). Post-editese: an Exacerbated Translationese. In: Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit XVII Volume 1: Research Track. Dublin: European Association for Machine Translation, pp. 273-281. <https://aclanthology.org/volumes/W19-66/>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Toral, A.; Way, A. (2015). Machine-assisted translation of literary text: A case study. Translation Spaces, v. 4, n. 2, pp. 240-267. <https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.4.2.04tor>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Toral, A.; Way, A. (2018). What level of quality can Neural Machine Translation attain on literary text? In: Translation Quality Assessment. Cham: Springer, pp. 263-287. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91241-7_12>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Vanmassenhove, E.; Shterionov, D.; Way, A. (2019). Lost in Translation: Loss and Decay of Linguistic Richness in Machine Translation. In: Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit XVII Volume 1: Research Track. European Association for Machine Translation, pp. 222-232.

Visby, M. (2020). The future relationship of literary translation and AI: Reflections from CEATL president. Counterpoint, n. 4, pp. 28-31. <https://www.ceatl.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Counterpoint_2020_04_article_08.pdf>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Youdale, R. (2019). Using Computers in the Translation of Literary Style: Challenges and Opportunities. New York: Routledge. <https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429030345>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Zakrajšek, K. (2020). CAT tools: The literary translator’s new assistant? Counterpoint, n. 4, pp. 24-25 <https://www.ceatl.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Counterpoint_2020_04_article_06.pdf>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Author Biographies

Mehmet Şahin, Boğaziçi University

Mehmet Şahin is associate professor in the department of Translation and Interpreting Studies at Boğaziçi University in Istanbul. He completed his undergraduate studies in Translation and Interpretation at Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey, where he also received a master’s degree in Teacher Education. He holds a PhD in Curriculum and Instruction with a concentration in Applied Linguistics/TESOL from Iowa State University. His doctoral research focused on computer-assisted language learning and educational technology. His current research interests include translation studies, translation and interpreting technologies, machine translation, and translator and interpreter training.

Sabri Gürses

Sabri Gürses is a scholar in translation studies and a literary translator who specializes in translating Russian and English texts to Turkish. He graduated from Istanbul University in Russian Language and Literature and earned a master’s degree in Translation Studies at the same institution. He then received a PhD in Russian Language and Literature from Erciyes University, in Kayseri, Turkey. He is the editor of Çeviribilim, an online translation journal, and runs the Çeviribilim Publishing House. He has worked on plagiarism issues in translation since 2005 and has published numerous articles on the topic. He also participated as a researcher in a scientific project on plagiarism in translation.

English-Turkish Literary Translation Through Human-Machine Interaction

Authors

Abstract

Keywords

References

Author Biographies

Mehmet Şahin, Boğaziçi University

Sabri Gürses

DOI

Published

Downloads