پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 31 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 834 |
| تعداد مقالات | 8,015 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 14,853,135 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 9,586,947 |
Translation Technology Tools and Professional Translators’ Attitudes toward Them | ||
| Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies | ||
| مقاله 3، دوره 11، شماره 2، دی 2019، صفحه 57-80 اصل مقاله (160.3 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22111/ijals.2019.5443 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Ali Beikian؛ Saeed Ketabi* ؛ Akbar Hesabi | ||
| University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Today technology is an integral part of professional translation; and it is generally assumed that translators’ attitudes toward translation technology tools influence their interaction with technology (Bundgaard, 2017). Therefore, the present two-phase study seeks to shed some light on what translation technology tools are and how professional translators feel toward them. The research method used is exploratory in nature, as it tends to discuss issues on which little research has been done and relies on secondary research for its data. The data required for answering the first question have been mined utilizing document analysis from language service providers’ (LSPs) websites, while the data for working out the answer to the second question have been obtained from ProZ.com Quick Polls. Based on our findings, translation technology tools fall into eight broad categories, of which the most commonly used are translation memory (TM) or computer-assisted translation (CAT) tools. In addition, it was found that most translators either do not have a love-hate relationship with technology or love it. This research is envisaged to form the basis of more detailed and conclusive studies. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| CAT Tools, Machine Translation (MT), Professional Translators؛ Translation Memory (TM)؛ Technology | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Bowker, L. & Barlow, M. (2008). A comparative evaluation of bilingual concordances and translation memory systems. In E. Yuste Rodrigo (Ed.), Topics in language resources for translation and localization (pp. 1-22). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bowker, L., & Fisher, D. (2010). Computer-aided translation. In Y. Gambie, r & L. Van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies online (pp. 27-49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bundgaard, K. (2017). Translator attitudes towards translator-computer interaction-findings from a workplace study. HERMES-Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 56, 125-144.
Bundgaard, K., Christensen, T. P., & Schjoldager, A. (2016). Translator-computer interaction in action: An observational process study of computer-aided translation. Journal of Specialised Translation, 25, 106-130.
Christensen, T. P. & Schjoldager, A. (2010). Translation-memory (tm) research: what do we know and how do we know it? HERMES-Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 44, 89-101.
Christensen, T. P. & Schjoldager, A. (2011). The impact of translation memory (tm) technology on cognitive processes: Student-translators’ retrospective comments in an online questionnaire. In B. Sharp, M. Zock, M. Carl, & A. L. Jakobsen (Eds.), Human-machine Interaction in Translation (pp. 119-130). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Common Sense Advisory (2019). The top 100 language service providers: 2019. CSA Research. https://csa-research.com/More/Featured-Content/Global-Market-Study/Top-100-LSPs
Dillon, S., & Fraser, J. (2006). Translators and TM: An investigation of translators’ perceptions of translation memory adoption. Machine Translation, 20(2), 67-79.
Doherty, S., & Moorkens, J. (2013). Investigating the experience of translation technology labs: Pedagogical implications. Journal of Specialised Translation, 19, 122-136.
Drugan, J. (2013). Quality in professional translation: Assessment and improvement. London: Bloomsbury.
Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2017). An ergonomic perspective of translation. In J. W. Schwieter, & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 332-349). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Blackwell.
Fulford, H., & Granell-Zafra, J. (2005). Translation and technology: A study of UK freelance translators. Journal of Specialized Translation 4, 2-17.
Garcia, I. (2007). Power-shifts in web-based translation memory. Machine Translation, 21, 55-68.
Guerberof, A. (2013). What do professional translators think about post-editing. Journal of Specialised Translation, 19, 75-95.
Guerberof, A., Depraetere, H., & O’Brien, S. (2012). What we know and what we would like to know about post-editing. Revista Tradumàtica, 10, 211-218.
Hutchins, W. J., & Somers, H. L. (1992). An introduction to machine translation. London: Academic Press.
Kelly, N. (2014, August 19). Why so many translators hate translation technology. HuffPost [Online]. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-so-many-translators-h_b_5506533
Koskinen, K., & Ruokonen, M. (2017). Love letters or hate mail: Translators’ technology acceptance in the light of their emotional narratives. In D. Kenny (Ed.), Human issues in translation technology: The IATIS yearbook (pp. 8-24). London: Routledge.
Lagoudaki, E. (2006, November 25). Translation memories survey 2006. translation memory systems: Enlightening users’ perspective. Imperial College London [online]. http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/portal/pls/portallive/docs/1/7307707.PDF
Lagoudaki, E. (2008, October). The value of machine translation for the professional translator. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (pp. 262-269). Waikiki, Hawaii.
Lange, C. A., & Bennett, W. S. (2000). Combining machine translation with translation memory at Baan. In R. C. Sprung & S. Jaroniec (Eds.), Translating into success (pp. 203-218). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
LeBlanc, M. (2013). Translators on translation memory (TM): Results of an ethnographic study in three translation services and agencies. Translation and Interpreting, 5(2), 1-13.
LeBlanc, M. (2017). ’I can’t get no satisfaction!’ Should we blame translation technologies or shifting business practices? In D. Kenny (Ed.), Human issues in translation technology: The IATIS yearbook (pp. 64-81). London: Routledge.
Moorkens, J. (2017). Under pressure: Translation in times of austerity. Perspectives, 25(3), 464-477.
Moorkens, J., & O’Brien, S. (2013). User attitudes to the post-editing interface. In S., O’Brien, M., Simard, & L. Specia (Eds.), Proceedings of MT summit XIV workshop on post-editing technology and practice (pp. 19-25).
O’Brien, S., & Moorkens, J. (2014). Towards intelligent post-editing interfaces. In W. Baur, B., Eichner, S., Kalina, N., Keßler, F., Mayer, & J., Ørsted (Eds.), Man vs Machine? Volume I: Proceedings of the XXth FIT World Congress (pp. 131-137).
O’Hagan, M. (2009). Computer-aided translation (CAT). In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 48-51). London & New York: Routledge.
O'Brien, S. (2012). Translation as human–computer interaction. Translation Spaces, 1(1), 101-122.
Somers, H. (2003). Computers and translation: A translator’s guide. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Taivalkoski-Shilov, K. (2019). Ethical issues regarding machine (-assisted) translation of literary texts. Perspectives, 27(5), 689-703.
Teixeira, C. (2014). The impact of metadata on translator performance: How translators work with translation memories and machine translation. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universität Rovira i Virgili and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 948 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,287 |
||