Machine Translation in the Field of Law: A Study of the Translation of Italian Legal Texts into German

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Eva Berta Maria Wiesmann
{"title":"Machine Translation in the Field of Law: A Study of the Translation of Italian Legal Texts into German","authors":"Eva Berta Maria Wiesmann","doi":"10.14746/cl.2019.37.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract With the advent of the neural paradigm, machine translation has made another leap in quality. As a result, its use by trainee translators has increased considerably, which cannot be disregarded in translation pedagogy. However, since legal texts have features that pose major challenges to machine translation, the question arises as to what extent machine translation is now capable of translating legal texts or at least certain types of legal text into another legal language well enough so that the post-editing effort is limited, and, consequently, whether a targeted use in translation pedagogy can be considered. In order to answer this question, DeepL Translator, a machine translation system, and MateCat, a CAT system that integrates machine translation, were tested. The test, undertaken at different times and without specific translation memories, provided for the translation of several legal texts of different types utilising both systems, and was followed by systematisation of errors and evaluation of translation results. The evaluation was carried out according to the following criteria: 1) comprehensibility and meaningfulness of the target text; and 2) correspondence between source and target text in consideration of the specific translation situation. Overall, the results are considered insufficient to give post-editing of machine-translated legal texts a bigger place in translation pedagogy. As the evaluation of the correspondence between source and target text was fundamentally worse than with regard to the meaningfulness of the target text, translation pedagogy should respond by raising awareness about differences between machine translation output and human translation in this field, and by improving translation approach and strengthening legal expertise.","PeriodicalId":32698,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Legilinguistics","volume":"37 1","pages":"117 - 153"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Legilinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2019.37.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Abstract With the advent of the neural paradigm, machine translation has made another leap in quality. As a result, its use by trainee translators has increased considerably, which cannot be disregarded in translation pedagogy. However, since legal texts have features that pose major challenges to machine translation, the question arises as to what extent machine translation is now capable of translating legal texts or at least certain types of legal text into another legal language well enough so that the post-editing effort is limited, and, consequently, whether a targeted use in translation pedagogy can be considered. In order to answer this question, DeepL Translator, a machine translation system, and MateCat, a CAT system that integrates machine translation, were tested. The test, undertaken at different times and without specific translation memories, provided for the translation of several legal texts of different types utilising both systems, and was followed by systematisation of errors and evaluation of translation results. The evaluation was carried out according to the following criteria: 1) comprehensibility and meaningfulness of the target text; and 2) correspondence between source and target text in consideration of the specific translation situation. Overall, the results are considered insufficient to give post-editing of machine-translated legal texts a bigger place in translation pedagogy. As the evaluation of the correspondence between source and target text was fundamentally worse than with regard to the meaningfulness of the target text, translation pedagogy should respond by raising awareness about differences between machine translation output and human translation in this field, and by improving translation approach and strengthening legal expertise.
法律领域的机器翻译:意大利法律文本的德语翻译研究
随着神经范式的出现,机器翻译在质量上又有了一次飞跃。因此,实习翻译人员对其的使用大大增加,这在翻译教育学中是不可忽视的。然而,由于法律文本具有对机器翻译构成重大挑战的特征,因此出现了一个问题,即机器翻译现在能够在多大程度上将法律文本或至少某些类型的法律文本翻译成另一种法律语言,从而限制后期编辑工作,因此,是否可以考虑在翻译教学中有针对性地使用。为了回答这个问题,我们测试了机器翻译系统DeepL Translator和集成机器翻译的CAT系统MateCat。这项测试在不同的时间进行,没有特定的翻译记忆库,提供了几种不同类型的法律文本的翻译,使用这两种系统,然后是错误的系统化和翻译结果的评估。评价标准如下:1)译文的可理解性和意义性;2)考虑到具体的翻译情况,原文与译文的对应关系。总的来说,这些结果被认为不足以使机器翻译法律文本的后期编辑在翻译教学中占有更大的地位。由于对原文和译文对应性的评价从根本上来说不如对译文意义的评价,翻译教育学应该通过提高对机器翻译和人工翻译在这一领域的差异的认识,改进翻译方法和加强法律专业知识来应对。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Comparative Legilinguistics
Comparative Legilinguistics Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信