Comments on: Why automated translation produces gobbledigook http://blog-en.icanlocalize.com/2008/07/why-automated-translation-produces-gobbledigook/ Practical Tips For Marketing and Selling in Foreign Markets Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:27:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Matheus http://blog-en.icanlocalize.com/2008/07/why-automated-translation-produces-gobbledigook/comment-page-1/#comment-4217 Matheus Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:27:50 +0000 http://blog-en.icanlocalize.com/?p=4#comment-4217 I am a linguist and I could agree with you to some point. My first argument is that machine transation can be good but this depends on what you want to use it for. The input text is quite important for the good output. If there are too many slang words, or bad grammar, or wrong spelling, there is no way to receive good translation. Machine translators are not expected to be able to translate Homer and the fact that all translators work very bad can remain in the past now. I am not saying that machines are to move human translators out of the way. They are to be used by every day people to be able to read things on th einternet, write or read a short message, and things of this kind but not to take the role of human translators (that couldn't happen). An innovatin that has been made and that makes machines translate better is the use of topical dictionaries. One such application is Moztrans by Interlecta (this is an add-on for Mozilla). The fact that Moztrans uses dictionaries is just one of the features that makes it work well but not the only one. After all, google is not the only translator that exists online , is it? About ambiguities, idioms, pragmatic meaning, marked structures...as I said before, machines are not humans. Some translators translate idioms, if the idiom is common enough and the machine has it in its database. In conclusion, I want to repeat what the author has said in the last paragraph "For clear, precise, lucid translation there is no alternative to a professional certified human translator". And I want to add, don't underestimate machine translators for everyday use (translating pages and short texts) and try several, there is not only google, remember that! Google is not the best and not the only example of MT. I am a linguist and I could agree with you to some point.
My first argument is that machine transation can be good but this depends on what you want to use it for. The input text is quite important for the good output. If there are too many slang words, or bad grammar, or wrong spelling, there is no way to receive good translation.

Machine translators are not expected to be able to translate Homer and the fact that all translators work very bad can remain in the past now. I am not saying that machines are to move human translators out of the way. They are to be used by every day people to be able to read things on th einternet, write or read a short message, and things of this kind but not to take the role of human translators (that couldn’t happen).

An innovatin that has been made and that makes machines translate better is the use of topical dictionaries. One such application is Moztrans by Interlecta (this is an add-on for Mozilla). The fact that Moztrans uses dictionaries is just one of the features that makes it work well but not the only one. After all, google is not the only translator that exists online , is it?

About ambiguities, idioms, pragmatic meaning, marked structures…as I said before, machines are not humans. Some translators translate idioms, if the idiom is common enough and the machine has it in its database.

In conclusion, I want to repeat what the author has said in the last paragraph “For clear, precise, lucid translation there is no alternative to a professional certified human translator”. And I want to add, don’t underestimate machine translators for everyday use (translating pages and short texts) and try several, there is not only google, remember that! Google is not the best and not the only example of MT.

]]>