Hacia la evaluación de la práctica de la posedición: una herramienta de diagnóstico para el futuro

Autores/as

Resumen

En el presente artículo perfilamos una herramienta de diagnóstico para evaluar la práctica de la posedición. No es habitual que se utilicen estudios empíricos como base para su evaluación, a pesar de disponer de ejemplos de tales instrumentos. Esperamos que nuestra herramienta ayude a seleccionar profesionales de la traducción o alumnado de traducción adecuado para proyectos de posedición con la detección de conocimientos, competencias o  actitudes importantes para este trabajo que no se encontraban hasta ahora en el comportamiento de los aspirantes a desempeñarlo.

Palabras clave

Posedición, herramienta de diagnóstico, práctica de la posedición.

Citas

Bowker, L. & Fischer, D. (2010). “Computer-Aided Translation”. In: Gambier, Y. & Doorslaer L. V. (eds.). Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 60–65. . [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator's Dilemma: When new Technologies cause great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School. <https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amr.2008.32465791>. . [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

CasMaCat. (2015). D6.3. Analysis of the Third Field Trial. <http://www.casmacat.eu/uploads/deliverables/d6.3.pdf> [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Daems, J.; Macken, L., & Vandepitte, S. (2013). “Quality as the Sum of its Parts: A two-step Approach for the Identification of Translation Problems and Translation Quality Assessment for HT and MT+PE”. In: O’Brien, S.; Simard, M. & Specia L. (eds.). MTSummit XIV Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice, Proceedings. European Association for Machine Translation. European Association for Machine Translation, pp. 63-71. <https://www.lt3.ugent.be/media/uploads/publications/2013/MTSummitPaper%20-%20Quality%20as%20the%20sum%20of%20its%20parts%20-%20Final.pdf>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

De Almeida, G. (2013). Translating the Post-editor: An Investigation of Post-Editing Changes and Correlations with Professional Experience across Two Romance Languages [Thesis]. Dublin: Dublin City University, School of Applied Language and Intercultural Studies. <http://doras.dcu.ie/17732/1/THESIS_G_de_Almeida.pdf>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Forcada, M. L. (2016). “New Uses of Machine Translation in the Translation Workstation” [Paper]. In: Tradumàtica Research Group. Translators and Machine Translation: Book of presentations. Bellaterra: Department of Translation, Interpreting and East Asian Studies. <https://ddd.uab.cat/record/168388>. . [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Global Market Research Firm Common Sense Advisory find Post-edited Machine Translation among the fastest growing Segments of the Language Industry. (2016). Common Sense Advisory. <http://www.commonsenseadvisory.com/default.aspx/Contettype=ArticleDet&tabID=64&moduleId=392&Aid=36546&PR=PR>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Green, S.; Heer, J. & Manning, C. D. (2013). "The Efficacy of Human Post-Editing for Language Translation". In: CHI’13 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Paris, France April 27-May 02, 2013. New York: ACM, pp. 439-448. . [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Guzmán, R. (2007). "Manual MT Post-Editing: If It's Not Broken, Don't Fix It!". Translation Journal, v. 11, n. 4. <http://translationjournal.net/journal/42mt.htm>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Hu, K. & Cadwell, P. (2016). “A Comparative Study of Post-editing Guidelines”. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, v. 4, n. 2, pp. 346-353. . [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

ISO. (2017). ISO 18587:2017: Translation Services – Post-editing of machine translation output – Requirements. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

Kenny, D. (2016). “A Critique of Contemporary Translation Technology.” Paper presented at Threlford Memoral 2016, London, UK.

Koponen, M. (2012). “Comparing Human Perceptions of Post-Editing Effort with Post-Editing Operations”. In: 7th Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation. Proceedings of the Workshop: Montreal, Canada, June 7-8, 2012. Stroudsburg [PA]: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 181-190. <http://www.statmt.org/wmt12/pdf/WMT23.pdf>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Koponen, M. (2016a). “Is Machine Translation Post-editing worth the Effort? A Survey of Research into Post-editing and Effort”. JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation, n. 25, pp. 131-148. <https://www.jostrans.org/issue25/art_koponen.pdf>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Koponen, M. (2016b). Machine Translation Post-Editing and Effort: Empirical Studies on the Post-Editing Process. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. <http://hdl.handle.net/10138/160256>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Lommel, A. R. & DePalma, D. A. (2016). Europe's Leading Role in Machine Translation: How Europe is Driving the Shift to MT. Common Sense Advisory. <http://cracker-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/Europes_Leading_Role_in_MT.pdf>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Moorkens, J. & O’Brien, S. (2013). “User Attitudes to the Post-Editing Interface”. In: O’Brien, S.; Simard, M. & Specia, L. (eds.). Proceedings of MT Summit XIV Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice: Nice, September 2, 2013, pp. 19-25. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/caaf/1b5f83cb9f2d3eea35ea2c9996cc92c116b0.pdf>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Moorkens, J. & O’Brien S. (2015) “Post-editing evaluations: Trade-offs between novice and professional participants”. <https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3d9f/1d12660d374224ec33d53992c9a602cbe93c.pdf?_ga=2.16921337.1913992725.1530259713-1911252626.1530259713>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Moorkens, J. & O’Brien S. (2017) “Assessing User Interface needs of Post-editors of Machine Translation”. In: Kenny, D. (ed.). Human Issues in Translation Technology: The IATIS Yearbook. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 109-130.

Nunes Vieira, L. (2017). “From Process to Product: Links between Post-editing Effort and Post-edited Quality”. In: Lykke Jakobsen, A. & Mesa-Lao, B. (eds.). Translation in Transition: Between Cognition, Computing and Technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 162-186. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/btl.133.06vie>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Nunes Vieira, L. & Alonso, E. (2018). The Use of Machine Translation in Human Translation Workflows: Practices, Perceptions and Knowledge Exchange. Bristol: Institute of Translation and Interpreting. <https://www.iti.org.uk/professional-development/research/university-of-bristol>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

O’Brien, S. & Moorkens J. (2014) “Towards Intelligent Post-editing Interfaces”. In: Proceedings of the FIT XXth World Congress: Berlin, august 4-6, 2014. <http://doras.dcu.ie/20136/1/Towards_Intelligent_PE_OBrienMoorkens.pdf>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Offersgaard, L.; Povlsen, C.; Almsten L. K. & Maegaard, B. (2008). "Domain Specific MT in Use". In: Hutchins, J. & Hahn, W. v. (eds.). Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation 2008. Hamburg: Hamburger Informatik Technologie-Center, pp. 150-159. http://mt-archive.info/EAMT-2008-Offersgaard.pdf>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Massardo, I. & Van der Meer, J. (2017). The Translation industry in 2022. A Report from the TAUS Industry Summit. Amsterdam, March 20-22, 2017. <https://www.taus.net/think-tank/reports/event-reports/the-translation-industry-in-2022>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Paice, K. (2017). “Is Post-Editing Dead?”. Lilt. <https://labs.lilt.com/is-post-editing-dead>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Plitt, M. & Masselot, F. (2010). “A Productivity Test of Statistical Machine Translation Post-Editing in a Typical Localization Context”. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, n. 93 (January), pp. 7–16. . [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Pluymaekers, M. & Van Egdom, G. W. (2016). "Is full post-editing of machine translations always necessary? Evidence from translators' and end users' judgements”. Paper presented at EST Congress, Århus, Denmark.

Pym, A. (2013). “Translation Skill-Sets in a Machine-Translation Age.” Meta: Journal des traducteurs = Translators’ Journal, v. 58, n. 3 (December), pp. 487–503. . [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Sigla, K. [et al.]. (2014). “Predicting Post-editor Profiles from the Translation Process”. In: Casacuberta, F.; Federico, M. and Koehn, P. (eds.). Workshop on Interactive and Adaptive Machine Translation: Vancouver, BC, October 22-26 2014. [S.l.]: AMTA, pp. 51-60. <https://www.amtaweb.org/AMTA2014Proceedings/AMTA2014Proceedings_IAMTWorkshop_final.pdf>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Teixeira, C. S. C. (2014). “Perceived vs. Measured Performance in the Post-Editing of Suggestions from Machine Translation and Translation Memories”. In: O’Brien, S.; Simard, M. & Specia, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (WPTP 3): Vancouver, BC, October 22-26, 2014. [S.l.]: AMTA, pp. 45-59. <https://www.amtaweb.org/AMTA2014Proceedings/AMTA2014Proceedings_PEWorkshop_final.pdf>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Van der Meer, J. (2017). “The Story of the Translation Industry in 2022: A Helicopter View of a Five Year Innovation Roadmap for the Translation Sector”. Paper presented at Translating Europe Forum 2017, Brussels, Belgium. <https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/tef2017_vandermeer_en.pdf>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

Van Egdom, G. W. (2017). “Post-editing Effort: Procedures, Processes, Perspectives”. Paper presented at Translation in Transition, Ghent, Belgium.

Way, A. (2018). "Quality expectations of machine translation". In: Moorkens, J. [et al.] (eds.). Translation Quality Assessment: From Principles to Practice. Berlin: Springer, pp. 159-178. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91241-7_8>. [Last accessed on May 30, 2018].

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/tradumatica.211

Publicado

2018-12-03

Descargas

Derechos de autor 2018 Gys van Egdom, Luca Nunes Vieira, Jakub Absolon

Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.