Evaluating machine translation of literature through rhetorical analysis
Keywords:
ChatGPT, DeepL, literary texts, machine translation, neural networks, quality evaluation, rhetorical devicesAbstract
This paper looks at how well ChatGPT and DeepL, two AI tools, translate literary works. Not only can ChatGPT translate text, but it can also carry out other jobs. DeepL is a service that performs computer translation and uses neural networks. The paper looks at how ChatGPT and DeepL translate books, poems, and dialogues compared to translations done by humans. The paper also talks about the pros and cons of using machine translation for literary reasons, including issues of creativity, style, and adapting to different cultures. The paper uses both new and old studies on machine translation technologies and how they work with human translation. The paper comes to the conclusion that ChatGPT and DeepL are useful but imperfect tools for translating literature, and they require human review and improvement. The paper adds to the fields of machine translation and natural language processing by looking at how two cutting-edge AI tools, ChatGPT and DeepL, can be used to translate literary works. The paper also adds to literature studies and digital humanities by looking into what machine translation can and can't do for creative writing and dialog systems. The goal of the paper is to encourage researchers, translators, writers, and users from different fields to work together and talk to each other.
Downloads
References
Turovsky, B. (2016). Ten years of Google Translate. Google AI Blog. https://ai.googleblog.com/2016/09/ten-years-of-google-translate.html
Toral, A., & Way, A. (2018). What level of quality can Neural Machine Translation attain on literary text?. In Translation Quality Assessment (pp. 263-287). Springer, Cham.
Moorkens, J. (2017). Under pressure: Translation in times of austerity. Perspectives, 25(4), 464-477.
Hutchins, J. (1986). Machine translation: Past, present, future. Horwood.
Bentivogli, L., Bisazza, A., Cettolo, M., & Federico, M. (2016). Neural versus phrase-based machine translation quality: a case study. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.04631.
Fantinuoli, C., & Prandi, B. (2021). Towards the evaluation of automatic simultaneous speech translation from a communicative perspective. 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, IWSLT 2021.
Cipriani, A. M. (2023). Literary Digital Stylistics in Translation Studies. Springer Nature.
Goto, I., & Tanaka, H. (2017, August). Detecting untranslated content for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Neural Machine Translation (pp. 47-55).
Rădulescu, A. (2019). Algorithmic textual practices: Improving fluency and word order in neural machine translation output. Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations, 18, 126-132.
Horváth, I. (2022). AI in interpreting: Ethical considerations. Across Languages and Cultures, 23(1), 1-13.
Cadwell, P., o’Brien, S., & Teixeira, C. S. (2018). Resistance and accommodation: factors for the (non-) adoption of machine translation among professional translators. Perspectives, 26(3), 301-321.
Eco, U. (2001). Experiences in translation. University of Toronto Press.
Gaspari, F., Toral, A., Naskar, S. K., Groves, D., & Way, A. (2014). Perception vs. reality: measuring machine translation post-editing productivity. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (pp. 60-72).
Krimat, N. (2021). The challenge of quality management in crowdsourced translation: the case of the NGO Translators Without Borders. QScience Connect, 2021(3), 4.
Koponen, M. (2016). Is machine translation post-editing worth the effort? A survey of research into post-editing and effort. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 25, 131-148.
Jordanous, A., & Keller, B. (2012). Weaving creativity into the Semantic Web: a language-processing approach. In International conference on computational creativity (pp. 216-220).
Cardona, M. A., Rodríguez, R. J., & Ishmael, K. (2023). Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Teaching and Learning: Insights and Recommendations.
Hutchins, W.J. & Somers, H.L. (1992). An introduction to machine translation. London: Academic Press.
Hobbs, J. R. (1990). Literature and cognition. Stanford University, Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Koehn, P. (2009). Statistical machine translation. Cambridge University Press.
Gaspari, F., Almaghout, H., & Doherty, S. (2015). A survey of machine translation competences: Insights for translation technology educators and practitioners. Perspectives, 23(3), 333-358.
Castilho, S., Moorkens, J., Gaspari, F., Calixto, I., Tinsley, J., & Way, A. (2017). Is neural machine translation the new state of the art?. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 108(1), 109-120.
Matusov, E., Wilken, P., & Georgakopoulou, Y. (2019, August). Customizing neural machine translation for subtitling. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 1: Research Papers) (pp. 82-93).
Chakrabarty, T., Zhang, X., Muresan, S., & Peng, N. (2021). MERMAID: Metaphor generation with symbolism and discriminative decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.06779.
ElBeheri, N. (2019). Collaboration between Machine Translation and Human Translation for Higher Quality and More Production in Translation. Textual Turnings: An International Peer-Reviewed Journal in English Studies, 1(1), 446-473.
Ploin, A., Eynon, R., Hjorth, I., & Osborne, M. A. (2022). AI and the Arts: How Machine Learning is Changing Artistic Work. Report from the Creative Algorithmic Intelligence Research Project.
Bentivogli, L., Bisazza, A., Cettolo, M., & Federico, M. (2018). Neural versus phrase-based mt quality: An in-depth analysis on english–german and english–french. Computer Speech & Language, 49, 52-70.
Castilho, S., Moorkens, J., Gaspari, F., Sennrich, R., Sosoni, V., Georgakopoulou, P., ... & Gialama, M. (2017). A comparative quality evaluation of PBSMT and NMT using professional translators. In Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit XVI: Research Track (pp. 116-131).
Moorkens, J., Castilho, S., Gaspari, F., & Doherty, S. (2018). Translation quality assessment. Machine translation: Technologies and applications ser. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 1, 299.
Guerberof Arenas, A., & Moorkens, J. (2019). Machine translation and post-editing training as part of a master’s programme. Jostrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation, (31), 217-238.
Belinkov, Y., Durrani, N., Dalvi, F., Sajjad, H., & Glass, J. (2017). What do neural machine translation models learn about morphology?. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.03471.
Chesterman, S. (2021). Through a glass, darkly: artificial intelligence and the problem of opacity. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 69(2), 271-294.
https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt
https://www.deepl.com/press.html
Gaiman, N. (2003). Coraline. Bloomsbury.
Li, J., Miller, A. H., Chopra, S., Ranzato, M. A., & Weston, J. (2016). Dialogue learning with human-in-the-loop. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.09823.
Eco, U. (2001). Experiences in translation. University of Toronto Press.
Casas Manzanares, N. (2020). Injection of linguistic knowledge into neural text generation models.
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature machine intelligence, 1(9), 389-399.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Translation and Language Studies
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
