A Comparative Analysis of Human and Machine Translation Quality

A common question raised by both translators and Machine Translation developers is Will Machine Translation (MT) ever attain the level of Human Translation (HT) quality? Researchers have argued that MT will likely never replace HT completely because MT systems cannot anticipate all the specifications for possible translation projects (Melby & Hague, 2019) and because MT systems lack cultural understanding (Latief et al., 2020). Researchers have also argued that the use of machines should be focused on augmenting humans, rather than trying to imitate them (Brynjolfsson, 2022). The purpose of this study is to determine how the quality of MT differs from the quality of HT. The HT data for this study comes from a database of translation certification exams and includes the evaluations of the exams. The MT data comes from using the sources texts shown in the database and using GPT-4 and Microsoft Translator to translate them. The quality of the translations is determined quantitatively with a quality score and qualitatively by analyzing the different types of errors prevalent in both types of translation. This study uses the Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) framework to classify errors. This thesis focuses on data from four language pairs: Spanish to English, English to Spanish, Portuguese to English, and English to Portuguese. In this study, it is observed that, although there is not a significant difference in the quantitative quality scores between HT and MT, the qualitative information about the MQM error types provides insight into the differences between HT and MT for translating to and from English, Spanish, and Portuguese. This insight establishes the strengths and weaknesses of the two types of translations for these language pairs and also informs the training of human translators and the direction of quality improvement of machine translation.

Publication Details

Journal
ScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University)
Published
2024-08-14
Primary Topic
Magnetic confinement fusion research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Comparative Analysis of Human and Machine Translation Quality

ScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University)
Magnetic confinement fusion research
article

A Comparative Analysis of Human and Machine Translation Quality

article en

Abstract

A common question raised by both translators and Machine Translation developers is Will Machine Translation (MT) ever attain the level of Human Translation (HT) quality? Researchers have argued that MT will likely never replace HT completely because MT systems cannot anticipate all the specifications for possible translation projects (Melby & Hague, 2019) and because MT systems lack cultural understanding (Latief et al., 2020). Researchers have also argued that the use of machines should be focused on augmenting humans, rather than trying to imitate them (Brynjolfsson, 2022). The purpose of this study is to determine how the quality of MT differs from the quality of HT. The HT data for this study comes from a database of translation certification exams and includes the evaluations of the exams. The MT data comes from using the sources texts shown in the database and using GPT-4 and Microsoft Translator to translate them. The quality of the translations is determined quantitatively with a quality score and qualitatively by analyzing the different types of errors prevalent in both types of translation. This study uses the Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) framework to classify errors. This thesis focuses on data from four language pairs: Spanish to English, English to Spanish, Portuguese to English, and English to Portuguese. In this study, it is observed that, although there is not a significant difference in the quantitative quality scores between HT and MT, the qualitative information about the MQM error types provides insight into the differences between HT and MT for translating to and from English, Spanish, and Portuguese. This insight establishes the strengths and weaknesses of the two types of translations for these language pairs and also informs the training of human translators and the direction of quality improvement of machine translation.

ScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 57%
Magnetic confinement fusion research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

A Comparative Analysis of Human and Machine Translation Quality · ScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University) (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS