The ATA Chronicle - January/February 2020 - 35

I thought it was very interesting to
see some outside-the-box ideas in the
comments (and the comments on the
comments). I liked the idea of using MT
as a quick aid to know where to place
text in a document if you can't read the
language, or for gisting, or as a quick
terminology resource. I also like the
mention of different MT strategies for
different projects and, again, I admire
the porcupinian approach (you just
learned a new word!).
These are all voices of professional
translators, which implicitly makes
them important and reflective of a
professional reality, but here is my
hope. I hope that next year and the
year after, and the year after that, that
there will be changes in the answers on
similar cork boards. There will surely
always be the "dinosaur"-like answers
(I'm actually quoting a word from one
of the comments rather than using a
descriptive term myself). And there will
also always be those answers that reflect
the typical post-editing approach (editing
one suggestion from one MT engine) as
the chosen way to use MT. Percentages
might shift a little toward the latter, but
generally speaking those two voices are
going to stay unchanged. But I long for
more outside-the-box ideas.
I hope to see answers like using
not one but several MT engines
simultaneously (or several suggestions
from one MT engine); or using autocomplete to just use fragments of MT
suggestions; or using your termbase
or a glossary to automatically correct
or flag MT suggestions; or using your
translation memory to give an MT
match a reliability rating (or vice versa);
or using voice recognition to work
alongside and together with MT; or, or,
or. (And here neither I nor anyone else
knows what could possibly follow those
open-ended "or's.")
The data generated by MT is a
resource that can be used with varying
levels of success along with other
resources. In fact, it can be combined
with other resources. One thing that
sets translators apart from others is
the creativity we use to produce our
translations. Why not use that same
creativity in the ways we approach
www.atanet.org

our work? This work by definition is
so diverse (after all, there's nothing
that can't be translated), and that very
diversity requires different approaches
for every translator, and maybe even
every project.
I want us to be creative in the way
we use our resources. Think about the
ways in which we use and maintain
our termbases. While it's true that,
overall, we probably don't use them
enough ("too tedious and therefore too
expensive to create and maintain"),
we have very individual approaches to
using them, even as to what kind of
data we're entering, how we're using
the data, and what our hopes are for
it. Few professional translators would
argue that terminology work is useless
or has a nefarious purpose, even
though it's sometimes underused. It's
laughable to even think that way. When
I talk to translators about terminology
maintenance, I generally get only
two responses. One is the slightly
embarrassed admission that "I'm not
using it nearly enough, even though I
should," and the other is "I love it and
I can't imagine how I could work
without it."
Now, there is no value in a
terminology database per se. There is
value in what we make of it. And while
this is not a perfect parallel to MT
engines, the "what-we-make-of-it" part
of it is. Why aren't we as adventurous
in finding new and better ways to work
with that resource as we are with other
resources? (Which, as in the case of
termbases, might mean that many don't
use it.)
Here are some thoughts that might
help us. First, we need to understand
that every situation is different. While
it's great that large companies train
their MT engines and therefore have no
problems with erratic terminology in the
MT output, that's not the case for the vast
majority of translators. There are many
translators working for TransPerfect
and Lionbridge on the supplier side or
Microsoft and GM on the buyer side,
but many more do not. This means that
the experience of one kind of translation
doesn't necessarily "translate" to another
set of experiences. We need to really

understand this when we talk to each
other about MT, and any technology.
Then there are real differences in
language combinations. While neural MT
has leveled the playing field a little bit
when it comes to the quality of languages
that are syntactically very different, and
were therefore a difficult nut to crack for
previous kinds of MT, it has not solved
the problem of low-resource languages,
for instance. (I regret not asking for the
language combination of those who
responded to the MT question on the
cork board at the conference.)
Then there is the kind of technology
we use, both through MT and through
the environment via which we access the
MT (aka "translation environment tool").
■	

Is the MT adaptive or not?

■	

Am I allowed to use certain kinds
of MT?

■	

Does my translation environment tool
or my external plugin allow me to
access one or several suggestions and,
if so, how?

■	

Do my terminology management,
termbase, and MT suggestions "talk"
to each other?

■	

And so on and so forth

One of the reasons I've been very
insistent on using the term "translation
environment tool" is that "environment"
comes with the concept that all kinds of
features are available and can be used to
the user's liking. It provides wide open
rooms that I can decorate as I like. I think
it's the job of the technology vendor to
keep it that way and even broaden that
approach. It's our job to pick and choose
our tools within those environments and
become excellent at using them. And
maybe even find a way to use a tool that is
uniquely your own, because there might
be no other colleague who uses it quite
the way you do.
Jost Zetzsche is chair of
ATA's Translation and
Interpreting Resources
Committee. He is the author
of Translation Matters, a
collection of 81 essays
about translators and translation technology.
Contact: jzetzsche@internationalwriters.com.

American Translators Association

35
http://www.atanet.org
The ATA Chronicle - January/February 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The ATA Chronicle - January/February 2020
