1. Interactive Translation vs. Pre-Translation in the Context of Translation Memory Systems: Investigating the Effects of Translation Method on Productivity, Quality and Translator Satisfaction Julian Wallis LRC XI – European Foundation October 25 th, 2006

2. Challenges in the Translation Market  Increased demand for translation Globalization New products “Information Society”  Shorter deadlines Online resources Simultaneous shipment, or “Simship”  Shortage of translators “Babyboomer” generation Lack of graduates from translation programs Result: Translators are turning to tools for help, especially Translation Memory (TM) tools

3. Translation Memory (TM)  What is a TM? CAT tool which stores previously translated texts with corresponding source texts and allows for these to be ‘recycled' in new translations.  Organization and Storage Segmentation Alignment  Retrieval of Information Exact Match Fuzzy Match Sub-segment Match Term Match

4. Impact of TMs on Translation Market  Translators – want to use TMs to accelerate the translation process  Clients – want translators to use TMs to save time and money Current Situation  Ownership Translators – “intellectual property” Clients – TM is a value to them  Payment Clients – Demand discounted rates Translators – Expect some compensation  Other issues Cost of technology, experience with specific system Potential solution? Pre-translation

5. Methods of working with a TM  Interactive translation Translator works one sentence at a time, consulting and evaluating matches proposed by system  Pre-translation The entire ST is compared against the TM database and matches are automatically inserted to create a “hybrid text”, which the translator must then edit

6. Hybrid text

7. Pilot Study  Objective: To compare interactive translation vs pre- translation to determine which approach is more beneficial with regard to:  Productivity  Quality  Translator satisfaction  Limitations  TM system  Participants  Languages  Texts

8. Hypotheses  Productivity Pre-translation < Interactive translation  It will take translators longer to decipher hybrid texts and find formulations to fit in with pre-translated bits  Quality Pre-translation < Interactive translation  Translators are obliged to work with translated portions that may reflect different styles, and they cannot consult all solutions contained in the TM  Translator Satisfaction Pre-translation < Interactive translation  Translators are obliged to adapt their style to the pre- translated portion, and they have less control over creating a holistic text

9. Experiment Preparation  Participants  Domain  Building the TM and producing pre- translations  Documents and training for translators  Evaluation criteria for evaluators  Pre-testing and refining Pilot Study

10. Experiment Execution  Translators: Blue, Green, Red, Yellow  Translation order: Blue - ST2 using interactive translation & Red- ST1 using pre-translation Green - ST1 using interactive translation & Yellow- ST2 using pre-translation  Time and Resources  Questionnaire

11. Data Analysis - Productivity  Factors influencing results ST2 more difficult than ST1 (Green)  Results of Blue and Yellow argue this Technical difficulties (Red) Familiarity with software Number of results in interactive mode Quality of finished translations  Method of translation has no significant effect on productivity TranslatorsInteractive Translation Pre- Translation Blue49 min (ST2)49 min (ST1) Red64 min (ST2)55 min (ST1) Green51 min (ST1)60 min (ST2) Yellow46 min (ST1)46 min (ST2) Blue and Yellow – same amount of time to translate both texts Red and Green – show exact opposite results

12. Data Analysis - Quality  IT - 5/8 higher scores  PT - 2/8 higher scores  Factors influencing results Difficulty of texts Quality of finished translations Amenability of one text to IT  IT produces slightly higher quality than Pre- translation ITPTHigher Quality Margin of Imp. Blue EV 10% 00 EV 231%27%IT4% Red EV 135%27%IT8% EV 278%25%IT53% Green EV 157%60%PT3% EV 245%73%PT28% Yellow EV 121%14%IT7% EV 265%40%IT25%

13. Data Analysis – Translator Satisfaction  Interactive Translation Not enough screen space Faster and more efficient Better productivity Principle resource  Pre-translation Time consuming Too many windows open at once Inconsistent style Not principle resource o General consensus = Interactive mode superior to Pre- translation mode o All translators preferred working in Interactive mode  Interactive mode is superior to Pre-translation mode in terms of job satisfaction

14. Conclusion  Interactive Translation keeps translators interested and proves to increase the quality of translations produced  Using the pre-translation option and giving translators a hybrid text may not prove to be as beneficial for clients  Conclusions reached are preliminary but merit further research For more information please contact: jwall035@uottawa.ca