e Translator and the Computer - Wyższa Szkoła Filologiczna WSF/… · translator’s work could...

e Translator and the Computer

Proceedings of a Conference held in Wrocław, April 20–21, 2012, organized by

the Philological School of Higher Educationand C&M Localization Centre

Tadeusz Piotrowski, Łukasz Grabowski

(editors)

WYDAWNICTWOWYŻSZEJ SZKOŁY FILOLOGICZNEJ

WE WROCŁAWIU

ISBN 978-83-60097-22-9

© Copyright by Wyższa Szkoła Filologiczna we Wrocławiu, Wrocław 2013

Copy editing: Irena Szymaniec

Proofreading: Barbara Woldan

Layout and typesetting: Sylwia Rudzińska

Cover design: Konstancja Górny

WYDAWNICTWO WYŻSZEJ SZKOŁY FILOLOGICZNEJ WE WROCŁAWIU50–335 Wrocław, ul. Sienkiewicza 32, tel. (+48 71) 328 14 14fax (+48 71) 322 10 06, http://www.wsf.edu.pl, e-mail: [email protected] I.

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5

PART I. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Iwona Sikora, Polish translators’ workstation: On the usage and adoption of computer-assisted translation tools with someimplications for translators’ training ....................................................... 11

Łukasz Bogucki, Translation so!ware in audiovisual contexts ................. 35

Michał Tyszkowski, Bartłomiej Dymek, Zarządzanie projektem tłumaczeniowym w nowoczesnej #rmiejako zaawansowany proces biznesowy .................................................... 43

Wojciech Figiel, Komputerowy system notacji w tłumaczeniukonsekutywnym dostępny dla tłumaczy z dysfunkcją wzroku .............. 57

Ksenia Gałuskina, Korpusy w pracy tłumacza ............................................ 73

Katarzyna Marszałek-Kowalewska, Piotr Wierzchoń,Computer-aided translation of technical texts: A corpus-based studyof multiword unit extraction in the modern Persian language .............. 89

Ewa Rudnicka, Maciej Piasecki, Polish-English wordnet – a new resource and its potential for translators ...................................... 109

Marcin Walczyński, Editorial errors in translation: Translators’computer skills and the implications for translators’ training ................ 123

Grzegorz Wojarnik, Uwarunkowania prawne i technologiczneelektronicznego repertorium tłumacza przysięgłego w modelucloud computing .......................................................................................... 139

Contents

Contents4

PART II. RESEARCH ON TRANSLATION

Maciej Eder, Computational stylistics and Biblical translation:How reliable can a dendrogram be? ....................................................... 155

Łukasz Grabowski, Computational stylometry in search oftranslation universals: !e case of English originaland translated science "ction novels ...................................................... 171

Jan Rybicki, Stylometric translator attribution: Do translatorsleave lexical traces? .................................................................................... 193

Bogusław Solecki, Quantitative and qualitative analysisof sample translations produced by Google Translateand human translators .............................................................................. 205

On April 21–22, 2012, the Philological School of Higher Education in Wrocław, together with C&M Localization Centre, organized a conference e Transla-tor and the Computer. A two-day meeting brought together a diverse group of participants, who shared their experiences and insights and suggested how the translator’s work could be improved. !e conference also provided an oppor-tunity to re"ect upon the future of the translator’s work and translation studies in the context of rapid development of information and computer technologies.

More than 30 papers were presented at e Translator and the Computer conference, with plenary lectures delivered by Łukasz Bogucki (University of Łódź) and Krzysztof Jassem (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań). Also, a number of practical workshops and special sessions dedicated to presentation of commercial so*ware, such as ApSICXbench, Déjà Vu X2, Google Translator Toolkit, SDL Trados Studio, memoQ, XTM and many others, were organized. !e list of participants in the conference included linguists, lexicographers, translators, academic teachers, computer scientists, product specialists and many other scholars and practitioners interested in using a variety of computer programs and tools (e.g. computer-assisted translation so*ware, translation memories, online dictionaries, language corpora etc.) in the translator’s work.

!e present volume has a selection of papers presented at the conference, which can be categorized into two broad topical areas, such as practical applica-tions of computer technologies in translator’s work and empirical research on translation completed with the help of computer programs.

Practical applications

!e 4rst part of this volume has nine articles. In the opening paper, Iwona Sikora presents the results of the survey on the use of computer-assisted trans-lation tools (CAT) among Polish translators. !e results of the study conducted in 2011 showed that despite widespread use of CAT tools and high awareness of the bene4ts they provide, there is still a large group of professionals who are either unfamiliar with or skeptical about this so*ware. Consequently, the author formulates a number of suggestions concerning translators’ training in such tools.

!e paper by Łukasz Bogucki presents an overview of state-of-the-art devel-opments and computer and digital applications used in a dynamically develop-ing 4eld of audiovisual translation, including subtitling, surtitling, fansubbing,

Introduction

Introduction6

dubbing, voice-over and audiodescription. !e author notes that the practice of audiovisual translation has become increasingly dependent on computer tech-nologies, including solutions such as eye-tracking, machine translation, speech recognition, text compression, normally used in other areas of science.

!e paper by Michał Tyszkowski and Bartłomiej Dymek focuses on com-plexity of translation project management seen as a complex business process. !eir paper describes in greater detail the stages of the translation project life cycle, starting from "le preprocessing and ending with "nal veri"cation of the completed translation. Apart from technical aspects of the translation project management, the authors discuss typical problems and potential areas for im-provement with an aim to raise awareness of the complexity of this business process.

Wojciech Figiel addresses a speci"c problem of note-taking in consecu-tive interpreting as encountered by the blind or visually-impaired interpreters. Since traditional note-taking systems that require the use of sight cannot be used in such circumstances, the author presents in detail a custom-designed note-taking system consisting of a laptop computer equipped with a speech synthesizer, screen reader and dedicated so#ware used by the blind or low--sighted people. He also presents selected examples of practical application of this system, as well as the rules and principles governing its use.

Ksenia Gałuskina explores various possibilities of using di$erent types of language corpora (monolingual, comparable and parallel) that can be useful in the translator’s work, and discusses the concept of the Web as corpus, presents a number of corpus-building and corpus-processing tools, such as BootCat, AntConc, WordSmith Tools, Unitex and NooJ, and outlines their most impor-tant functionalities that can be used as translation aids.

!e article by Katarzyna Marszałek-Kowalewska and Piotr Wierzchoń investigates the use of various extraction methods of multiword units from a custom-designed corpus of Persian (Farsi) language with the view to facilitate translation of Persian technical texts into English. Grounded in corpus linguis-tics, the methods provide data in the form of inventories of "xed multiword units that can be further used in translation of specialist texts in language pairs other than Persian–English.

Ewa Rudnicka and Maciej Piasecki present some possibilities of using English and Polish wordnets, i.e. plWordNet and Princeton Wordnet – two lexical and semantic databases freely available online, in translation practice. !e authors describe a set of hierarchically ordered inter-lingual relations and the mapping procedure used for the linking of the two wordnets, and discuss the role of these inter-lingual relations in "nding translation equivalents.

Marcin Walczyński discusses the problem of editorial errors encountered in translation. Drawing on a number of examples, he proposes a classi"ca-tion of such errors into "ve major categories, such as format setting, typo-

Introduction 7

graphic, spelling, punctuation- and convention-related errors. Finally, Marcin Walczyński explores causes of these errors and puts forward some proposals of remedial measures aimed to raise awareness of this problem among translators.

In the last paper in this part, Grzegorz Wojarnik addresses a number of legal and technological issues relevant in the context of building an online repertory system for sworn translators. "e author shows that the requirements imposed by legal regulations, in particular the ones on personal data protection, provide a challenge in developing such an online system. Grzegorz Wojarnik sees the cloud computing technology as a framework to develop the repertory system which can to some extent free translators from duties imposed by legislators.

Empirical research on translation

"e second part of this volume has four papers dealing with computer-assisted empirical studies on translation. In the #rst, Maciej Eder utilizes a selection of methods typical of computational stylometry in a comparison of two versions of the New Testament, i.e. the Greek original and its Latin translation known as the Vulgate. Although the study focuses primarily on stylistic di$erentiation between particular books, the author broaches upon the problem of reliability of data in computational stylometry, and presents a simple way of improving reliability of cluster analysis plots using resampling of input data.

"e paper by Łukasz Grabowski presents the results of an empirical study of translation universals of core patterns of lexical use and the leveling-out in English translations of contemporary Russian science #ction novels. Using a combination of selected corpus linguistics and computational stylometry methods, the author shows that the style of English translations di$ers from science #ction novels originally written in English.

Jan Rybicki examines the application of selected quantitative methods typi-cally used in authorship attribution in the exploration of the phenomenon of translator’s visibility or invisibility in translated texts. Comparing a number of authorial and translatorial signals in selected English and Polish originals and translations, Jan Rybicki is convinced that the results can help one reexamine some of the current views on language, literature, literary translation, author-ship and style.

"e volume ends with a paper by Bogusław Solecki, who presents the results of an experiment aimed to measure the quality of English-to-Polish and Polish--to-English translation of randomly chosen fragments of texts completed with the help of Google Translate machine translation tool. "e results show that the quality of produced translations is rather inconsistent, in particular in terms of syntax. "e author recommends experimenting with the program by using dif-ferent text types as Google Translate occasionally produces high-quality results.

Introduction8

Acknowledgements

e present volume would not have appeared without the support and hard work of many people engaged both in its preparation and in the organization of e Translator and the Computer conference. We would like to thank Mr Ryszard Opala, the Chancellor of the Philological School of Higher Education, and Mr Michał Tyszkowski from C&M Localization Centre in Wrocław for making this conference possible. Many thanks are also due to the members of the organizing committee, including Magdalena Nowak, Anna Zasłona, Anna Gamracy, Bogumił Ucherek and Grzegorz Ziemkiewicz, and in particular to Ms Monika Szela, who has given so freely of her time and e"ort.

Tadeusz Piotrowski and Łukasz Grabowski

Part I. Practical applications

Technology extends human capacities(Biau Gil & Pym 2006)

Abstract. !is article presents full discussion of the results of the survey conducted among Polish translators in July and September 2011 and is a revised version of an earlier author’s article (Sikora 2012). !e study presented below concerns the adoption and usage of computer-assisted translation tools used especially at the document and translation production level, with special attention paid to translation memory tools. !e results of the survey suggest that computer-assisted tools are in a widespread use in translations and translators are aware of the bene"ts of using such technologies. How-ever, the study also shows that there is still a group of professionals who either have not had a chance to become familiar with these tools or due to di#erent reasons are convinced that the time, e#ort, and costs devoted to learning how to operate such pro-grams exceed the bene"ts of their usage. On this basis, certain conclusions concerning translators’ training in translation technologies are formulated. Moreover, translators’ preferences concerning the features and composition of computer-assisted translation systems are examined with a view to providing some hints for the further research and development in this "eld.

Keywords. Machine translation, translation memory, computer-assisted translation, translator’s workstation, information communication technology.

1. Introduction

!e aim of this paper is to present and discuss the results of the survey carried out among Polish translators in July and September 2011 concerning the range of tools, considered to form the so-called translator’s workstation, used by pro-fessional translators in the process of document translation and production.

Polish translators’ workstation: On the usage

and adoption of computer-assisted translation

tools with some implications for translators’ training

Iwona SikoraSchool of Higher Vocational Education in Nysa, PolandCzęstochowa University of Technology, Poland

Iwona Sikora12

A modern translator’s workstation1 is a rather complex system built of several various components. It comprises a variety of tools starting with word counting applications and ending with Translation Memory (TM) technolo-gies. It is not a single program containing all necessary tools and applications but rather a suite of programs which can be adapted to each translator’s individ-ual needs. A Translation Memory and Terminology Management Tools, o!en referred as Terminology Management Systems (TMS), are its integral parts, yet all the other components are equally important since they facilitate, speed up

and improve the quality of the translation services provided.

2. e survey

2.1. e survey of goals

"e survey’s aim was to examine the adoption and usage of information and communications technologies, in particular Computer-Assisted called also Computer-Aided Translation (CAT) tools. Similar surveys examining transla-tors’ attitudes towards CAT tools, Translation Memory (TM) systems or Ma-chine Translation (MT) modules were carried out mainly in the UK (cf. Trad Online 2010/2011; Fulford & Granell-Zafra 2005: 4; Lagoudaki 2006; Dillon & Fraser 2006). No such studies, however, have been published so far in reference to Polish translators. "is study is an attempt to #ll this gap and provide some preliminary insights into the Polish translators’ practices, attitudes and opin-ions concerning the usage of selected CAT tools. More speci#cally, the study aims are as follows:

(1) to study translators’ attitudes towards CAT tools and TM systems in

particular;

(2) to examine the range of tools used by translators in the translation pro

cess (at the stage of translation creation, document preparation, informa-

tion search, and terminology retrieval);

(3) to analyze the reason for which translators use or do not use TM systems;

(4) to analyze the features of TM packages considered most useful in trans-

lator’s work;

(5) to examine terminology search techniques;

(6) to examine the level of adoption of CAT tools among Polish translators.

1 A good introduction to the origin and usage of the term “translator’s workstation” constitutesthe article of John Hutchins (1998).

Polish translators’ workstation 13

2.2. e survey’s design and structure

!e classi"cation of translator’s activities proposed by Heather Fulford and Joaquin Granell-Zafra (2005: 5; 2004: 54–55) was partially used in the prepa-ration of this survey. Moreover, the survey by Elina Lagoudaki (2006) served also as the guidance in designing the questionnaire. !e questions in this study refer especially to so#ware and applications at the document production level as, e.g., word processors, OCR (optical character recognition) readers, "le con-verters, etc.), translation creation (translation memory and terminology man-agement systems), as well as one of the most essential phases in the translation process – terminology and information search (various tools and techniques used for "nding relevant terminology and necessary information).

!e survey was conducted online in July and September 2011 and consisted of four parts with 45 questions. It was aimed at Polish translators only and was promoted via translators’ forums such as Proz.com (Polish section), MLingua.pl, GoldenLine.pl, BFT – Branżowe Forum Tłumaczy, Textum.pl; also it was sent via email to freelancers, translation agencies and certi"ed translators. 285 ques-tionnaires were collected in total, out of which 159 (56%) were completed in full and eligible for the analysis. !e results will be presented in the following

sections:

(1) Translator’s pro"le (demographic data, education, special quali"cations

and work pro"le information);

(2) Familiarity with Information Communication Technology (ICT) and

its usage for translation (general purpose and translation-speci"c purpose

so#ware);

(3) Terminology search and retrieval strategies (technologies used, strategies

preferred, terminology management);

(4) Perception of CAT tools, especially TM (attitudes, requirements, reasons

for adoption and using, reasons for rejection).

3. e survey of research results and analysis

3.1. Translator’s pro!le

!e majority of the respondents were female (69%) and the average age was from 30 to 39 years (46%). !e distribution of the other age groups was as fol-lows: 20–29 years – 24%, 40–49 years – 16%, 50–59 years – 8%, and 60 years and over – 6%. !e majority of respondents (36%) come from a city with the population over 500 000, 26% – from 100 000 to 500 000 residents, 19% – up to 50 000 residents, 10% live in rural areas, and 9% reside in towns with the population from 50 000 to 100 000.

Iwona Sikora14

More than 90% of the respondents hold a higher education diploma, out

of which 41% completed postgraduate studies. Only 7% of the translators have

higher vocational education, while there were only four (3%) translators with

secondary education certi! cate (Figure1).

Figure 1. Education level of the respondents

As for their studies major, 125 respondents (78%) completed language studies. " e second largest group (11%) took their degree in economic and business studies, followed by 8% majoring in technical subjects. " e total ex-ceeds 100% because for this question the respondents were allowed to choose more than one answer. It also means that some translators majored in two or more disciplines. " e results show that the great majority hold a diploma in language studies and only 34 translators do not have linguistic quali! cations for performing this profession and have a higher education diploma in other ! elds (Figure 2).

78%

11%

8%

6%

5%

5%

4%

3%

3%

language studies

economics/business studies

technical/mathematical studies

natural studies

legal studies

social studies

liberal arts other than language studies

medical studies

other

Figure 2. Studies major


!e results also show that only 19% of all translators completed more than one study, which may seem to be a rather low number. Only eight respond-ents completed law studies, which seems a little puzzling in relation to the high number of translators who translate legal texts (Figure 4). Looking at the other disciplines, 18 translators reported completing economic/business studies, 12 declared majoring in disciplines related to technical subjects, 10 in natural studies, and 8 in social domain.

!e respondents were also questioned about possessing special profes-sional (apart from linguistic) quali"cations for performing the translator’s job acquired during any type of studies but with strictly translational major or spe-cialization.

31%

3%

26% 27%

13%

no - only general

education

yes - BA studies

with major in

translation

yes - MA studies

with major in

translation

yes - post-

graduate studies

for translators

other

Figure 3. Special professional quali"cations

A great majority (69%), apart from general higher education, possess also speci"c quali"cations in the "eld of translation. !ose with general linguistic education constitute 31% (see Figure 3). !ese results show a tendency among Polish translators to improve their quali"cations either at post-graduate pro-grams (27%) or at BA/MA programs with major in translation studies (29%). !ese numbers show a growing trend among Polish translators to choose this profession consciously. Some translators enumerated also acquiring a doctoral degree or completing special courses for translators abroad.

For this question the respondents were allowed to choose more than one an-swer. !e results demonstrate that the translators do not limit themselves to one type of services and perform also simultaneous (21%) and consecutive (43%) interpreting services. !e results also show that written translation is a basic form of their professional activity accompanied by interpreting services. !e fact that almost half of the respondents specialize in both translation and interpreting shows the #exible and versatile character of the Polish translational community.

Iwona Sikora16

In regard to main subject areas of translated texts, the most common were legal (62%), economic, ! nancial (60%), and technical (59%) texts (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Main subject areas of translated texts

As for professional experience, the respondents declared having from 1 to 48 years of experience (Figure 5). " e biggest group includes translators with professional experience from 6 to 10 years (38%), followed by those with ex-perience between 11 and 20 years (25%). " e third biggest group consists of young translators with professional experience up to 5 years (23%).

Figure 5. Years of professional experience

Asked about the volume of pages (1500–1800 characters or ca. 350 words) translated weekly, most respondents reported that they translate 21–30 (15%) pages or 41–50 (15%) pages a week, which would make an average of 10 pages


per a working day. !ese numbers seem feasible taking into account the wide-spread usage of CAT tools (Figure 6).

8%

11% 11%

15%

10%

15%

13%

7%

4%

0%

2%

4%

1-5 pp. 6-10

pp.

11-20

pp.

21-30

pp.

31-40

pp.

41-50

pp.

51-60

pp.

61-70

pp.

71-80

pp.

81-90

pp.

91-100

pp.

over

100 pp.

Figure 6. Number of pages translated weekly

As for computer literacy level, 51% of the respondents describe their com-puter skills as very good, 37% as good, and 11% as average; whereas only one translator thinks their computer skills are too low and insu"cient (cf. Table 1). !ese answers correspond to the results obtained for the question concerning the usage of CAT tools. !e comparison of these results shows that the higher computer skills of the respondents the greater the usage of CAT tools (TM sys-tems in particular). Only one respondent claimed his/her computer skills were too low and he/she also reported not using CAT tools. Among the respondents who rated their computer skills as average, a majority – 61% – do not use CAT tools. For the respondents who described their computer skills as good or very good this tendency is reversed: the majority (61% for good and 75% for very good) acknowledge the usage of CAT tools. !ese results indicate strong cor-relation between the level of computer skills and actual usage of CAT tools.

Table 1. Level of computer skills and translation memory usage

Level of computer skills in %(numbers in the brackets show the number of respondents)

not su!cient average good very good

Do you use CAT tools with TM?

yes (0) 0% (7) 39% (36) 61% (61) 75%

no (1) 100% (11) 61% (23) 39% (18) 22%

never heard of such tools

(0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (2) 3%

Total (1) ≈ 1% (18) 11% (59) 37% (81) 51%

With regard to $le formats, translators work most frequently with standard $le formats such as Microso& Word, Excel, PowerPoint and plain text, which are typically supported by CAT tools. !e other $le formats used are PDF

Iwona Sikora18

(Portable Document Format) ! les – over 50%. Other computer-processable ! le formats were HTML (HyperText Markup Language) ! les (almost 20%), DTP (Desktop Publishing) ! les – 3%, and other graphic ! le formats – 8%. Moreover, 26% of the translated documents are in paper form (Figure 7).

Figure 7. File formats translated most frequently

" is data shows that a greater majority of translation volume is in a comput-er-processable form – which should be a clear indication for CAT tools design-ers and producers to widen the range of ! les supported by such applications.

" e respondents were also asked to specify the purposes for which they use the Internet in their work. To this question more than one answer was possible. " e answers are distributed evenly and the results indicate that the transla-tors use the Internet for three main purposes: communication with clients and other translators (emailing, processing orders, discussions on forums) and as a source of specialist and linguistic knowledge – the Internet serves as a tool for searching for relevant information and terminology required for the transla-tion project performed. Fewer translators use the Internet for marketing pur-poses (Figure 8).

62%

95%

91%

96%

10%

for marketing purposes

as a source of linguistic knowledge (searching

for and verifying terminology)

as a source of specialist knowledge (searching

for specialist information,source texts)

communication with clients and other

translators, processing orders

other

Figure 8. Uses of the Internet


3.2. Familiarity with Information Communication Technologyand its usage for translation

In this section, the results for questions concerning the level of adoption and usage of various ITC technologies are discussed. Table 2 presents the results for usage of computer tools at the document production level.

!e results reveal a widespread use of word processing applications, with MS Word being the most commonly used by 98% of the respondents. Another indispensable tool in the translator’s workstation is a word counting applica-tion. Although most word processors have built-in applications of this type (and 78% of respondents use such tools), 10% declare using an independent word counting tool (e.g., PractiCount, AnyCount, FineCount), 7% report they do not use such tools at all, and 5% never heard of such applications. !e to-tal of positive answers is 88%, whereas negative answers amount to 12%. !is number is a bit surprising since 99% of respondents declared translating writ-ten texts and the o"cial and widely accepted procedure in settlements with clients is charging per an accounting page, which requires using a word count-ing application.

Table 2. Usage of computer tools at the document production level

Yes No Never heard

Speech recognition soware

1% 92% 7%

DTP 15% 83% 2%

Graphics so!ware 42% 59% 0%

OCR so!ware 52% 45% 3%

File converters 62% 34% 4%

Presentation tools 66% 33% 1%

Spellcheckers 85% 11% 4%

Word counting tools 88% 7% 5%

Word editors 100% 0% 0%

In reference to spellchecking devices, 85% of the respondents use a spell-checker built into a word processor, and only two translators use other tools. !e negative answers total 15%, with 4% of respondents who never heard of such tools and 11% declaring not using spellcheckers at all.

66% of the group use presentation so"ware (such as MS PowerPoint) and 62% use #le converters in their work. !e negative answers constitute 34% for presentation programs and 38% for #le converters. Within these two latter groups only 1% and 4%, respectively, never heard about such applications. !e responses to these two questions are still at a high level but a decreasing ten-

Iwona Sikora20

dency can already be noticed. !is statement is corroborated by the results for the next question concerning the use of OCR (Optical Computer Recognition) technology: 52% use OCR application in their work, 48% do not use this tool, and only 3% never heard of such technology.

With regard to image and graphics editors (e.g., CorelDraw, Adobe Pho-toshop) 42% declare using these tools and 59% provide negative answers. !e percentage of positive answers lowers also for DTP so"ware, with only 15% needing this application in their work.

!e results are a bit di#erent for Speech Recognition (SR) devices – only two respondents (1%) use this tool in their work, whereas negative answers were collected from the overriding majority of 92%. Here the number of re-spondents who never heard of such devices is slightly higher in comparison to the same category for the previous question – 7%.

!e results presented in Table 2 reveal a decreasing tendency in the usage of standard o$ce computer applications which are used by translators at the doc-ument production level. Actually, most of these applications are practically in-dispensable in the translator’s workstation (such as word counting tools, OCR applications or &le converters). However, there are still a few respondents who are not even aware of their existence. All in all, it can be seen that the general so"ware used in document production processes has high levels of adoption and usage. !e numbers are lower for more specialized so"ware such as DTP, OCR or SR tools.

!is decreasing tendency is, however, even more noticeable as the level of specialization of translations and technologies increases (Table 3). And thus, 84% translators do not use so"ware for web pages localization; about 11% de-clare using it and 5% never heard of such tools. !e higher percentage of nega-tive answers to this question is, of course, conditioned also by a lower number of translators who perform this speci&c type of translation. !e same observa-tion applies to so"ware localization programs which are used only by 21% of the sample. !e remaining 73% do not use it, whereas around 6% never heard of such tools. !e last question in this category concerned subtitling tools. Here the numbers are similar: 11% – yes, 80% – no, and 9% – never heard of such so"ware – which is the highest number so far for all tools enumerated in the questionnaire (apart from TM and MT systems).

Table 3. Usage of special translation tools

Yes No Never heard

Localization soware 21% 73% 6%

Webpage translation 11% 84% 5%

Subtitling soware 11% 80% 9%


!e next question concerned the usage of specialized translation and ter-minology management tools. As demonstrated in Table 4 translation memory systems are most widely used by translators (65%) and also the lowest number of respondents have never heard of them (1%).

However, the numbers show a falling tendency for other tools. 41% of all translators reported using terminology management systems (e.g., MultiTerm, Lingo, Term Watch) for creating and managing their own term bases, 21% nev-er heard of such tools – which is quite a high number, and 38% reported not using them at all. !us, the total negative was almost 60%.

In the case of alignment tools, a great majority, namely 73% of all transla-tors, declared not using such so"ware, with almost one #"h of respondents who never heard of such technologies. Most of the 27% who reported being familiar with these tools use an aligner built into their CAT system (mostly SDL MultiTerm).

Table 4. Usage of translation memory systems, terminology management, alignment andmachine translation modules

Yes No Never heard

Translation memory (TM) systems

65% 33% 1%

Terminology manage-ment tools

41% 38% 21%

Alignment tools 27% 54% 19%

Machine translation (MT) so!ware

16% 80% 4%

!us, as the results show, fewer translators than in the case of TM use stan-dalone or built-in so"ware to manage their terminology or build translation memories. It means that some respondents who reported using TM systems (which in majority are equipped with integrated terminology and alignment tools) do not use these tools at all (neither as standalone so"ware nor as inte-grated modules). !e reasons may be miscellaneous: the translators may not have time to explore the numerous functions of their TMs, may not be even aware of their existence, or consider them too complicated to master or not necessary in their work. Interestingly, around 20% of all respondents were not familiar with terminology management and alignment tools, which may indi-cate that there is not enough information available and there is a need to popu-larize such tools at university courses or in professional journals.

In the case of machine translation so"ware, only 16% of the respondents use MT in their work (cf. Table 4). !e usage of MT is the lowest, but these tools be-long to the realm of automated translation and are a di$erent category than CAT systems, which do not perform the translation task, but only assist the translator.

Iwona Sikora22

e respondents were also asked which TM tools they use (cf. Figure 9). Among CAT tools with TM the most widely used were SDL Trados and Word-fast Classic, followed by memoQ, SDLX, Wordfast Pro and Across. It has to be noted, however, that the respondents were allowed to choose more than one option, which means that the translators use multiple tools. is trend may be related to varying experience with CAT tools. It can be speculated that transla-tors become more experienced and comfortable in using translation tools over time and start using other tools which may be better suited for their needs.

Figure 9. Usage of computer-assisted translation tools with translation memory

Figure 10 shows that the average length of TM usage is 5–7 years. e low percentage of translators using TMs for more than 10 years is not surprising since 10 years ago such tools were just entering the Polish market and were known only to a narrow circle of professionals.

Figure 10. Length of translation memory usage

e translators were also asked to specify the amount of text translated with the use of TM. e results show that almost one third of the respond-ents (who declared using TM systems) use TM to translate 100% of the text


content. Equally big number (28%) reported translating 75–99% of the text content with the use of TM systems. 21% and 13% of the respondents declared using TM system for 50–75% and 25–50% of text content, respectively. In fact, almost 80% of the respondents declare using TM tool for translating from 50 to 100% of the text content, which is a very promising number for the CAT tools future and usage. It also shows that TM tools have a quite good position in the translator’s workstation and have become essential in their work. ! ese num-bers are also explained by the fact that the translators specialize mostly in legal, " nancial and economic texts, which in general display a considerable degree of repetition of terminology; moreover, they also work with typical " le formats supported by all TM systems.

Asked why they do not use the TM tools for translating the whole text (Fig-ure 11) the translators most o# en reported low repetitiveness of terminology in the translated text (27% of those who declared not using TM for the whole text). ! e second most o# en indicated reason was the fact that the transla-tors (20%) received texts in paper form. It also means that these translators do not use OCR applications to scan documents and convert them into a text " le, which would enable the use of a TM system. ! e reasons for this may be di$ erent starting with lack of an OCR application, bad quality of the scanned text involving a lot of manual correction, a belief that this operation is too com-plicated or takes too much time. ! e translators reported also not using TM systems for translating the whole text because of technical reasons: 15% do not use these technologies because of a complicated layout of the text, 13% because their CAT tool does not support the " le format of the translated text, and 12% because they consider it too complicated for short texts. Also 9% reported that this technology is not suitable for texts types translated by them. Only 3% re-ported having no experience or skills to operate the program and 1% declared using other tools.

Figure 11. Reasons for not translating the whole text with translation memory systems

Iwona Sikora24

e respondents were also asked about the reasons for which they use CAT tools with TMs (Figure 12). Surprisingly, a great majority (78%) of those who declared using TMs reported that it was their own choice, whereas only 16% declared that it was required by the translation agency which the translator cooperates with, and only 4% use TMs because it is their client’s requirement. Among other reasons for using TM systems the translators enumerated getting access to a greater number of orders (one), or reported that it was a sugges-tion and not a requirement of the translation o"ce. One of the respondents explained that he/she cannot imagine translating without CAT tools.

Figure 12. Reasons for using computer-assisted tools with translation memory systems

Table 5. Years of using translation memory and percentage of text content translated

Percentage of text translated with TM

Percentage of text content translated with the use of TM in relation toyears of using CAT tools with TM

over 10 years

7–10 years 5–7 years 2–5 years 1–2 years less than 1 year

Less than 25%

0 0 4 12.5 8.5 8

25–50% 0 0 17.5 9.5 8.5 38

50–75% 0 18 13 12.5 35 38

75–99% 50 36.5 26 37.5 22 8

100% 50 45.5 39 28 26 8

Total % for 75–100%

100 82 65 65.5 48 16

As shown in Table 5, there exists a certain correspondence between the length of TM usage and percentage of text content translated. e total percent-age data for the groups of the respondents who declared translating 75–99 and 100% of text content with using TM indicate that the percentage of text trans-lated increases together with the number of years of using TM. is is probably due to the fact that with greater experience the translators feel more comfort-


able in using TM tools and, what is more, their collection of translations also grows, which allows them to use TM functions more e!ciently.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 to 5 5 to

10

11 to

20

21 to

30

31 to

40

41 to

50

51 to

60

61 to

70

71 to

80

81 to

90

91 to

100

more

than

100

less than 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-99%

100%

Percentage

of text

translated

with the use

of TM

Figure 13. Number of pages translated weekly and percentage of text content translatedwith the use of translation memory

Also some correspondence can be observed between the number of pages translated weekly and the percentage of text translated with the use of TMs (Figure 13). It seems that the translators who process from 21 to 60 pages week-ly use TM systems for translating from 50 to 100% of their text content.

54%

75%66%

81%

57%

46%

25%32%

19%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

only general

higher

education

bachelor's

degree

translation

studies

master's

degree

translation

studies

postgraduate

translation

studies

other

never heard

I don't use TM

I use TM

Figure 14. Professional quali"cations and translation memory usage

#e results presented in Figure 14 indicate that there is some correspond-ence between professional quali"cations of the translators and TM usage since the numbers are growing for the respondents who received special education in the translation "eld. Interestingly, the translators with bachelor’s degree or with postgraduate studies diploma use TM systems more frequently than those with master’s degree. It may indicate that as bachelor’s studies programs are quite recent solution in the Polish educational system, the need for training in trans-lation technologies is recognized by schools and they o$er such courses in their

Iwona Sikora26

curricula – which is re!ected in the higher proportion of bachelors using these technologies. As for postgraduate studies the percentage is the highest and this can be explained with a similar argument – postgraduate studies in translation are a matter of the recent 10 years and they have been created to respond to the changing needs of the translation environment and translators.

3.3. Terminology search and retrieval strategies

"e questions in this section were designed to examine more closely the strate-gies employed by translators in terminology search and management. "e re-sults for the #rst question concerning tools used for looking for relevant ter-minology are not particularly surprising and show that a great deal of search is done with the use of the Internet (Figure 15).

Figure 15. Tools used for terminology search and veri#cation (data in percent)

However, the number of those who still use paper dictionaries and print-ed texts to look for information is very high – which can be explained by the fact that not all specialist dictionaries are available online or on compact discs with read-only-memory (CD-ROMs). Moreover, not all online dictionaries are trusted sources of information.

In the next question the translators were asked to specify where they search for terminology in case they do not know a speci#c word. "e respondents could choose more than one option and were asked to put the sources in the order of most frequently to least frequently used (1 – the most, 10 – the least frequently used source). "e results show that the sources used most frequently are: dictionaries installed on computers (16%), paper dictionaries are still in great use (16%), a lot of translators use their TMs as the source of terms (13%) or look for them in their old translations or glossaries (10%). Internet diction-aries scored the most points (23%), but were the majority of translators’ second choice. In the third place come Internet translators’ forums (16%), followed


closely by search engines (a little less than 16%). Specialist texts in a given sub-ject found in the Internet were the fourth most frequent choice (20%). !is source of terminology was however chosen equally o"en as the #"h and sixth resource for terminology search. !e respondents declared also asking other translators (9%), but this answer was selected most o"en in the eighth place. !e translators declared that they also contact an expert in a given #eld, but this option was chosen most frequently as the ninth strategy, whereas specialized texts in a given #eld in paper form came most frequently in the seventh, tenth and eleventh place (6% for each).

3.4. Perception of Computer-Assisted Translation tools

In this section, translators were asked to grade the usability and importance of particular functions of TM systems. Some of these functions are real, existing functions/modules which the tools available on the market are equipped with. Others, even if they are not a part of any of the existing TM tools, were added to check whether the translators consider them useful in their job and with the hope that their opinions could be of some assistance in designing future TM systems or improving the existing TM so"ware.

Table 6. Importance of translation memory functions

Particular functions of TM systems

essential very important

somewhat important

a little important

not important

I don't know

Use of multiple TMs X

Handle PDF #les X

Use of multiple TMs located on an outside server

X

Automatic look-up and suggestion of terms

X

Key shortcuts adaptable to own needs

X

Terminology manage-ment module

X

Low price X

Easy to use X

Machine translation module

X

Handle various #le formats

X

Send and receive TMs via email

X

Iwona Sikora28

Particular functions of TM systems

essential very important

somewhat important

a little important

not important

I don't know

Run on other platforms than Windows

X

Cooperate with dictio-naries installed in the computer

X

Handle texts in graphics X

Integrated spellchecker X

Integrated OCR X

Keep the source !le format

X

Preview of the target !le

X

Integrated with Mi-croso" O#ce Word (access to CAT from the toolbar as, e.g., in WordFast)

X

As Table 6 demonstrates, the translators considered terminology manage-ment module, the ability to handle various !le formats, the possibility to send TMs via an email, the ability to retain the original !le format, and the possibil-ity to preview the target !le as the most essential features of TM systems. Great importance was also attached to other functions such as the ability of a TM tool to use multiple translation memories, the ability to handle PDF !les or graph-ics in the translated texts, an integrated spellchecker and OCR application. $e translators considered as very important the function of automatic look-up and suggestion of terms from a glossary and integration of the TM system with other dictionaries installed in the computer. $ese two features would be cer-tainly very useful and could speed up the task of terminology search to a great extent. Moreover, a TM tool should be easy to use, should allow adaptation of key shortcuts to particular needs and habits of a translator and should be inte-grated with a word processor to allow access to TM functions from the word processor’s toolbar. Interestingly, the price of a TM tool was rated by the major-ity of the translators only as somewhat important, which may indicate that the translators are willing to pay certain (reasonable, of course) amount of money for a system which can facilitate their work. Only two features were rated as not important. Firstly, the respondents consider the integrated machine translation module as not important, which is not surprising taking into account the low number of those who reported resorting to MT in their work. And secondly, the ability to run on other platforms than Windows was also assessed as not essential, which again was predictable due to the dominance of MS Windows operating system.


!ose translators who reported not using TM tools explained that they are not suitable for the type of translation tasks performed – 17% of those who de-clared not using TMs (Figure 16). Among other frequently chosen reasons the following were declared: high price, a general opinion that TM systems are too expensive for freelancers and the opinion that learning how to use TM so"ware is too time- and e#ort-consuming, or that costs of buying a TM tool exceed the bene$ts of using it.

It seems that two most important reasons preventing the translators from using TM systems are the conviction that the costs of purchase and the amount of time devoted to learn how to use such a program are too high to be worth considering (apart from the $rst reason – the tool is not suitable for the type of translation services provided).

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

not suitable for the type of translation services provided

the tool I would like to have is too expensive

I don't have time and I don't feel like looking for a right tool and …

such tools are too expensive for freelancers

learning how to use such tool is too time- and effort-consuming

costs of purchase of a TM tool exceed the benefits of using it

never heard of such translation tool

I used one/a few tools with TM but I didn't like any of them

other

I have a TM tool but I don't know how to use it

I used a TM tool but it didn't facilitate my work

Figure 16. Reasons for not using computer-assisted tools with translation memory

Finally, the respondents not using TM systems were asked to declare if they are willing to start using these technologies in the future. Interestingly, over 70% declared that they would like to start working with this technology in the future. It reveals that the translation community is aware of the developments on the CAT tool market.

4. Conclusions

!e survey presented in this paper was designed to analyze the adoption and usage of the widely understood CAT tools by the Polish translators with a view to providing some insights into the practices and strategies adopted by the Pol-ish translators in their professional work as well as formulating implications for translators training and further research and development in the $eld of trans-lation technologies. !e most important $ndings of the survey concern the questions related to the adoption of ICT at the document production level, the usage of more sophisticated tools at the translation creation level and practices adopted at the information and terminology search, and management level.

Iwona Sikora30

As for the document production level standard computer tools used for text editing and correction are in widespread use together with word counting tools. !e numbers lower, however, for so"ware used for processing graphics #les such as presentation tools, #le converters or OCR so"ware. However, con-sidering the usefulness of these tools in the translation process, the results are still quite low. !e reasons why these applications are only in average use may be manifold, but it may be assumed that translators are deterred by high prices of such tools, or they do not have enough information concerning their usage, or are not aware how these tools can speed up their work and consider such operations too technically complicated and just prefer entering the text manu-ally. Moreover, it has to be underlined that most of the translators consider the ability to handle PDF #les (and also other #le formats) and an integrated OCR tool as the most important features of CAT tools with TM. !ese #ndings in-dicate that there is a strong will among the translators to use such applications and, moreover, they provide a clue for future development of CAT tools which, according to the respondents, should be equipped with such functions.

!e results for the section concerned with terminology search and retrieval show that the Internet has become the main source of specialist and linguistic knowledge. !is is also where the translators turn to looking for terminological information (e.g., specialist texts, translators’ forums, online dictionaries and glossaries). Paper dictionaries are still in widespread use; however, it can be ob-served that online and electronic sources are gaining more popularity. !e re-sponses in this section show also correlation to the desired TM features, where the respondents clearly indicated that they would like to work with tools which are integrated with dictionaries already installed in the translator’s computer.

As for questions concerning tools applied at the translation creation lev-el, the results indicate strong correlation between the level of computer skills and TM usage. !e adoption of TM systems grows together with the level of computer literacy declared by the respondents. Also the proportion of the text content translated with the use of such technologies increases for respondents using TM tools for longer periods of time. !e results also demonstrate that although the adoption of CAT tools does not depend on the level of general higher education, it has some correspondence to the professional education (in translation studies) received. On the basis of the #ndings it can be concluded that translation courses o$ered by higher education institutions are of great importance in popularization of translation technologies, which is con#rmed by higher numbers of respondents with such quali#cations using TM tools.

Another interesting #nding concerns the reasons for which the respond-ents do not use TM systems for the translation of the whole text. !e results suggest that, apart from low repetitiveness of terms in a translated text, the most deterring factors are technical aspects, such as: paper form of a docu-ment, complicated layout or #le format not supported by the CAT tool used.


!ese "ndings corroborate the answers collected for the question concerningthe usefulness of particular TM features (Table 3) and again indicate directions for translator training and CAT development.

Interesting responses were also collected for the question concerning the reasons for which the translators do not use TM systems. Here, apart from be-ing not suitable for the translated text type, the most o#en mentioned reasons are the high price and a belief that learning how to use such a tool is too time-, cost- and e$ort-consuming in relation to the bene"ts it may have. !ese re-sponses are especially signi"cant for designing translation courses and studies curricula and clearly show that trainings devoted to translation technologies and their functions are an indispensable element of any serious and modern translation course.

In reference to terminology management and alignment tools, the results reveal that there is a need for greater promotion and training in these applica-tions for translators, preferably during translation courses at universities, since only 40% and 27% of the sample reported using terminology management and alignment tools, respectively, in their work. Here, also the proportion of the respondents who had no information about the existence of these technologies was the greatest (around 20% as compared to TM systems, for example). It may be the result of lack of awareness among translators of the bene"ts of using such tools, and fear that the costs and time outlay required for their adoption may exceed the bene"ts. However, the respondents expressed a strong preference for TM systems to be equipped with integrated terminology module, which also con"rms the statement above concerning the need for greater populariza-tion of terminology management functions of CATs.

In reference to the perception of TM tools, it can be noticed that translators would prefer to work with one single tool integrating all desired functions in one application rather than use separate standalone tools. Moreover, the will-ingness to use TM tools in the future was expressed by 70% of the respondents who reported not using them in their work, which is a positive indication for the future development and dissemination of CAT technologies.

To sum up, it is hoped that the results will contribute to the improvement and development of translation tools and will be helpful in designing special-ized translation courses and will point out new directions for research and analysis in this "eld.

References

Biau Gil, José Ramón, Anthony Pym 2006: Technology and translation (a pedagogicaloverview). In: http://isg.urv.es/library/papers/BiauPym_Technology.pdf ED 10/2011.

Dillon, Sarah, Janet Fraser 2006: Translators and TM: An investigation of translators’perceptions of translation memory adoption. Machine Translation 20 (2), 67–79.

Iwona Sikora32

Fulford, Heather, Joaquin Granell-Zafra 2004: !e uptake of online tools and web--based language resources by freelance translators: Implications for translator training,professional development, and research. In: Elia Yuste Rodrigo (ed.) 2004: Proceed-ings of the Second International Workshop on Language Resources for TranslationWork, Research and Training (LRTWRT ’04, August 28, 2004). 20th InternationalConference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2004), Geneva, August 23–27,2004. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 50–60.

Fulford, Heather, Joaquin Granell-Zafra 2005: Translation and technology: A study ofUK freelance translators. Journal of Specialized Translation 4, 2–17.

Hutchins, John 1998: !e origins of the translator’s workstation. Machine Translation13 (4), 287–307.

Lagoudaki, Elina 2006: Translation Memory systems: Enlightening users’ perspective.Key "nding of the TM Survey 2006 carried out during July and August 2006. In: http://www.bk.admin.ch/dokumentation/sprachen/04850/05007/05605/index.html?lang=it&download=M3wBPgDB_8ull6Du36WenojQ1NTTjaXZnqWfVqHahm#napmmc7Zi6rZnqCkkIV2gn2DbKbXrZ6lhuDZz8mMps2gpKfo ED 06/2013.

Sikora, Iwona 2012: !e usage and adoption of CAT tools – Survey into Polish trans-lators’ workstation – Implications for translator training and CAT development.In: Julian Maliszewski (ed.) 2012: Word-Term-Meaning New Approach to BusinessLanguage Training. Częstochowa: Wydawnictwo Wydziału Zarządzania Politech-niki Częstochowskiej, 75–98.

Trad Online 2010/2011: Translation Industry Survey 2010/2011 – what’s new since2008? “Translation Business and Translators” by Trad Online at www.tradonlione.fr

ED 10/2011.

Internet sources

http://www.globalization-group.com/edge/2010/10/alignment-translation-memory/

ED 10/2011.

Streszczenie

Niniejszy artykuł poświęcony jest omówieniu wyników ankiety przeprowadzonej wśród polskich tłumaczy, dotyczącej zastosowania narzędzi CAT w procesie tłuma-czenia. Badanie koncentruje się na narzędziach używanych przez tłumaczy na etapie tłumaczenia tekstu, przygotowywania końcowego dokumentu oraz poszukiwania od-powiednich informacji i terminologii. Analiza otrzymanych wyników pozwala stwier-dzić, iż narzędzia CAT są szeroko stosowane w polskim środowisku tłumaczeniowym, które jest ogólnie świadome korzyści płynących z ich używania. O ile jednak najwięk-szą popularnością cieszą się uniwersalne programy i aplikacje stosowane na etapie przygotowania samego dokumentu (edytory tekstów, narzędzia do liczenia znaków, programy sprawdzające pisownię, konwertery plików itd.), o tyle mniejsza jest popular-ność bardziej specjalistycznych programów zarówno na etapie produkcji dokumentu (programy stosowane do optycznego rozpoznawania znaków, przetwarzania i obróbki plików gra"cznych itd.), jak i na etapie tłumaczenia (pakiety z pamięcią tłumaczenio-wą, oprogramowanie do zarządzania terminologią, tłumaczenia stron internetowych,


tworzenia napisów "lmowych czy lokalizacji oprogramowania). Badanie wykazało, że programy z pamięcią tłumaczeniową cieszą się największym uznaniem, ponieważ 65% ankietowanych tłumaczy stosuje je w swojej pracy. Gorzej natomiast wypadły na-rzędzia wykorzystywane do zarządzania terminologią oraz oprogramowanie porów-nawcze (alignment tools), których odpowiednio 38% i 73% respondentów nie stosuje w swojej pracy, a 20% ankietowanych nigdy o takich narzędziach nie słyszało. Choć wyniki dla oprogramowania z pamięcią tłumaczeniową są raczej optymistyczne, to rezultaty uzyskane dla pozostałych, wymienionych wyżej komponentów wskazują, że konieczne jest położenie większego nacisku na ich upowszechnianie oraz kształcenie przyszłych tłumaczy w zakresie ich wykorzystania.

Abstract. e substantial headway in information technology and its application to translation has run parallel to the ever increasing preponderance of audiovisual me-dia and modes of audiovisual translation. Typewriters ceased to be part of translators workstations long ago and paper dictionaries are soon to follow, if they haven’t already. Today’s translators use CAT tools, alignment tools, termbases, forums and rarely get to see the people that they work for, conned to electronic communication. By the same token, the traditional triad of subtitling, dubbing, and voice-over is now insucient as a taxonomy of audiovisual translation. Subtitles are no longer chemically produced, gone are VHS tapes and the days of DVD are numbered. is paper will present audio-visual translation as a genre and academic discipline, concentrating on state-of-the-art developments and computer/digital applications. Live subtitling (respeaking), audio-description, and surtitling will be presented as new and technology-dependent modes of audiovisual transfer. Subtitling soware will be briey characterised, together with freeware used for fansubbing (amateur lm translations).

Keywords. Subtitling, audiodescription, surtitling, soware, audiovisual.

1. Introduction

e genre of audiovisual translation (AVT) is a particularly dynamic, new area of research within translation studies. It is commonly referred to as lm trans-lation, but the source texts are not limited to feature lms; they may include cartoons, commercial presentations, streamed content on the Internet, TV se-ries, even such material as opera and theatre performances and video games. In short, AVT comprises any form of language transfer where the information is not transmitted by one semiotic channel, but more: at least one audio channel and at least one video channel, hence the name. Specically, Dirk Delabastita (1989) and later Patrick Zabalbeascoa (2008) distinguish between:

– image (the visual-nonverbal channel), i.e. the moving pictures;

– writing (the visual-verbal channel), including displays (neon signs, road

Translation so!ware in audiovisual contexts

Łukasz BoguckiUniversity of Łódź, Poland

Łukasz Bogucki36

signs, billboards, etc.) and captions (credits, signboards, notices, burnt-in

captions, toptitles, subtitles);

– sound (the aural-nonverbal channel), including music and e!ects (both

on-location and added in post-production);

– speech (the aural-verbal channel), i.e. dialogue.Audiovisual translation as a new academic discipline interfaces with transla-tion studies, cultural studies, "lm studies as well as information technology. Its scope is broad, yet currently fuzzy. It is still evolving, the evolution concurrent with technological headway.

2. e importance of lm

Traditionally, translation has been associated with written texts, spoken utter-ances being the preserve of interpreting. While written translation, whether literary or specialised, is here to stay, the importance of translating audiovisual texts is no longer to be disregarded. #e Internet has revolutionised the dis-semination of information, more and more of it being available in video form. Film adaptations of "ne literature have gained immense popularity, not only with schoolgoers, who may be reluctant to go through bulky originals on their reading lists. Patrick Zabalbeascoa asks provocatively: “can one call oneself an expert on Shakespeare through books alone, without having seen any stage productions or a number of "lm versions?” (Zabalbeascoa 2010: 33). Later, he adds that “writers are only really socially visible when they go on strike as script producers for Hollywood "lm and television” (Zabalbeascoa 2010: 25). Already as early as two decades ago, Candace Whitman-Linsen observed that “as far as the impact is concerned, there is no question that the exposure of dubbed "lms to the public far outstrips that of translated written material” (Whitman-Linsen 1992: 10).

#ese quotations bear out the role of "lm (and, by extension, "lm transla-tion) in today’s reality. Let us have a closer look at how "lmic messages are translated.

3. Taxonomy and characteristics

Practically since the implementation of moving images for documentary or en-tertainment purposes, the accompanying dialogue has been translated either by means of revoicing (replacing the original dialogue with a pre-recorded one in the target language or superimposing the latter over the former) or caption-ing (inserting a written translation to coexist alongside the spoken original).

Translation soware in audiovisual contexts 37

Most audiovisual content is either subtitled (that is, captioned) or revoiced in the form of dubbing or (chie!y in Poland and some countries of the for-mer Eastern Bloc) voiced-over. "ese three types are also the best documented in literature (though there are by far more publications on subtitling than on voice-over, due to the endemic nature of the latter).

However, technological development and the trend toward accessibility for disabled persons have resulted in the proliferation of other types of AVT, which in turn has made the new genre more diverse and more attractive to scholars of varying backgrounds. Some of these are intralingual, that is, no change in linguistic code takes place; still, they are considered instances of translation, as long as Roman Jakobson’s seminal terminology is adopted (Jakobson 1959).

Other types of captioning include live subtitling, subtitling for the deaf and hard-of-hearing (SDH) and surtitling. Live subtitling, as the name suggests, is done in real time, traditionally with the help of specialised keyboards like Velo-type that enable high-speed typing, but more recently and more frequently by means of speech recognition so#ware, which converts spoken input into writ-ten subtitles, o#en displayed as running text; this variety is called respeaking. SDH is intralingual (in fact, so is live subtitling) and consists in replicating the original dialogue, o#en simplifying syntax and occasionally lexis, adding de-scriptions of ambient sounds (footsteps, tra$c, knocking on door) when they are relevant to comprehending the entire %lmic message, o#en using colours to help distinguish between characters on screen. Surtitling (sometimes called supratitling) is used to render the text of theatrical plays or operas by means of a display positioned above the stage, sometimes on the back of a seat in front of the viewer.

Apart from dubbing and voice-over (the type of voice-over practised on Polish television sometimes called lectoring), live commentary and narration are instances of revoicing; however, they are of little import in audiovisual translation research, being comparatively rare and of little interest to transla-tion scholars. In contrast, the other type of revoicing – audiodescription (AD) for the blind and the partially sighted – is enjoying considerable academic at-tention. It follows the trend toward accessibility as regulated by the European Union, for example, the “Audiovisual Media Services Directive,” 2007/65/EC. "e audiodescription consists in describing the visual elements of an audiovis-ual text and recording the description as a separate track, played during periods of silence in the given %lm or programme.

"e heterogeneous genre of audiovisual translation, comprising intralin-gual and interlingual methods of transferring the verbal and/or the visual con-tent by means of speech or writing, is made even more diverse by the possible inclusion of peripheral modes, such as interpreting or video game localisation.

Currently, therefore, AVT is very dynamic and diversi%ed; it is not among the objectives of this paper to predict which turns audiovisual translation re-

Łukasz Bogucki38

search may take in the future. Certainly, there is a lot to be done, because de-spite the spectacular growth over the recent years, the discipline is still in statu nascendi. Many areas within audiovisual translation studies remain under-re-searched, either because the theory is struggling to keep up with the practice (respeaking), or because a particular type has very limited scope (surtitling) or is endemic to a particular region (lectoring). AVT remains very attractive to students, who o!en confuse translation quality assessment with error-hunting, though; as a result, subjective accounts of inadequacies in dubbing or subti-tling versions of a recent box-o"ce hit mushroom across universities in Poland and elsewhere. Of course, there are also highly valuable contributions, to name Mikołaj Deckert’s unpublished doctoral dissertation (Deckert 2012). From a practical angle, audiovisual translation is an elitist occupation, especially in Poland, where most audiovisual material is handled by a handful of profes-sionals. According to a survey done by Anna Jankowska and Anna Celińska of STAW,1 the Polish Association of Audiovisual Translators, 65% of audiovisual translators earned a degree in languages; only 6% had some form of transla-tion education, with only 3% trained strictly in audiovisual translation. 90% of audiovisual translators are based in Warsaw, while the remaining 10% work in Kraków. Half the respondents had hands-on experience, while 42% received no training at all. It is also rather divisive, as the audiovisual Europe is clearly demarcated, with large, powerful and usually rich countries (Germany, France, Italy, Spain) using dubbing, subtitling being reserved for smaller or more sparsely populated nations (Portugal, Scandinavia, Greece). &e conventions are still fairly strong, thus German or Italian viewers, for example, tend to dis-approve of subtitled material. However, the high costs of dubbing are one of the main reasons why even dyed-in-the-wool dubbing audiences are slowly, but inevitably switching to subtitling.

4. e technology of audiovisual translation

Mary Carroll (2004) observes the signi*cant discrepancy between the process of subtitling some 20 years ago and what it is like today. In the past, translators used to work from a script, writing subtitles by hand, o!en with no prior access to the *lm itself. &ey were not required to have any technical skills, as the spot-ting (positioning the subtitle) was done by technicians.

Currently, subtitling is done with the help of highly sophisticated so!ware, multifunctional packages that resemble CAT tools like Trados used in special-ised translation. &ere does not appear to be an industry standard in AVT with respect to so!ware, but WinCAPS is a commonly used tool.

1 As described during a presentation at !e 4th International Media for All Conference – Audio-visual Translation: Taking Stock, London, June 28–July 1, 2011.


SysMedia, the manufacturer of WinCAPS, advertise their !agship product as blending “the human skills of the subtitler and translator with state-of-the--art audiovisual analysis and speech processing” (http://www.sysmedia.com/subtitling/o"ine_subtitling.asp). #e rationale is identical to that behind CAT tools. #e intelligent so$ware monitors the spelling, the timing, consistency with client speci%cations, and accordance with technical constraints, while the art of translation remains the responsibility of the human subtitler. Additional utilities enhance the subtitler’s work. Script Extractor not only imports %lm scripts, but can also parse them to extract dialogue, text, and speaker cues, with minimal guidance from the human counterpart. WinCAPS Compare, as the name suggests, compares the translated subtitles with the original %le for con-sistency regarding the layout (italics, bold, underlining, colour), which proves to be invaluable in creating multiple language versions, a common feature of today’s DVD/BluRay releases. Professional subtitling so$ware works with many %le formats, including STL, PAC, 890 and a number of others.

Competing so$ware includes Swi$ Create, EZTitles, Spot, Titlevision, Isis, to name but a few. Programs used by professionals have their freeware equiva-lents. Fansubbers (amateur translators) prefer Subtitle Workshop (Belczyk 2007), which is compatible with multiple %le formats, enables video synchroni-sation, can adjust the subtitles to the number of frames per second etc. In the past, a currently discontinued program called SubStation Alpha was standard, the name now signifying only a subtitle %le format (.ssa). #us subtitles can eas-ily be produced with freeware, a$er which other programs can be deployed to burn the captions. One may ask why pay a premium for professional so$ware, if subtitles are in fact little more than glori%ed text %les (which means they contain information about text positioning, colour, alignment etc.), obtainable with the help of many simple and cheap (or free) programs. #e answer lies in the market demands. Professional subtitling so$ware makes it possible to deliv-er consistent, complete, ready-to-use products. #e subtitler no longer needs to use several di&erent tools for translating, spotting, burning etc. Furthermore, some clients may insist that a particular program be used.

Modern subtitling software is capable of providing timing assistance (to

identify speech points and shot changes), displaying audio waveforms for sub-

title spotting, assisting in text segmentation (automatically dividing the script

into sensible subtitles) and working with pixels allowing for proportional let-

tering, so the number of characters per line, the prototypical subtitling con-

straint, ceases to be an issue (Díaz-Cintas & Remael 2007: 99).

However, technological development in audiovisual translation does not stop at sophisticated subtitling so$ware packages. 3D subtitling is now pos-sible, so is captioning one’s own recordings on YouTube and automatic transla-tion of subtitles on Google Translate. #e company NEC have invented the Tele Scouter, a set of spectacles-cum-microphone that enable displaying subtitles

Łukasz Bogucki40

directly on the lens; Google’s Project Glass is a technologically capable alter-native. Spoken Translation make so!ware called Converser for Healthcare, an innovative product that utilises speech recognition technology. To avoid hav-ing to resort to the services of a community interpreter, patients and doctors speaking di"erent languages can now communicate with the help of a laptop computer and text-to-speech and speech-to-text so!ware combined with a ma-chine translation engine. TTS and STT are also used in audiovisual contexts. Agnieszka Szarkowska (2011) describes an experiment with the use of Ivona so!ware for audiodescription. Pablo Romero-Fresco (2011) talks about the standard so!ware for respeaking, Dragon Naturally Speaking.

Merging technologies is becoming key to producing state-of-the-art au-diovisual translation so!ware and is also being noticed by academia. A nota-ble application of modern technology to audiovisual translation research was the MUSA project, operative between 2002 and 2004, a consortium of three European academic institutions, but also professionals like BBC, Systran and Lumiere Cosmos Communications. Its objectives included combining speech recognition, machine translation, and natural language processing technolo-gies to create “a multimodal multilingual system that converts audio streams into text transcriptions, generates subtitles from these transcriptions and then translates the subtitles in other languages” (http://sifnos.ilsp.gr/musa). A com-peting venture with British, Spanish and Czech partners was eTITLE, active between 2004 and 2006, integrating technologies of MT, speech recognition, and text compression to assist in producing subtitling (Melero, Oliver & Badia 2006).

Audiovisual translation researchers are also beginning to utilise technol-ogy normally of use in markedly di"erent areas of science, which is evidence for the interdisciplinarity of translation in general and AVT in particular. Eye-tracking, used chie#y in psychology medicine, is $nding its way into studies on the reception of subtitles. In 2010 the Warsaw-based AVT lab, working in cooperation with Interdisciplinary Center for Applied Cognitive Studies and within the framework of the Digital Television for All project, carried out eye-tracking tests with a view to establishing standards for subtitling for the deaf and hard-of-hearing. %e parameters tested included techniques for charac-ter identi$cation (the use of colours and speaker-dependent placement of the subtitle – the caption positioned near the speaker visible on screen), subtitling style, position (e.g., top or bottom), justi$cation, describing emotions, sounds, using borders, box and shadows. %e results can have a profound e"ect on the practice of SDH in Poland.


5. Conclusions

!e practice of audiovisual translation is increasingly dependent on techno-logical headway, in particular subtitling (captioning) so"ware. !is is not to be seen as a hindrance, though, but an asset. AVT thrives on technology and vice versa. AVT researchers include academics with translation background as well as professionals forking for the #lm industry. !is is an area where academia meets the industry and the gap between theory and practice is #nally being bridged. !e digital age where picture supersedes text to a large extent and dis-semination of informational content is extremely easy is conducive to a further increase in the popularity of audiovisual translation and audiovisual transla-tion research. However, the downside to doing research into the technological aspects of AVT lies in the fact that the rate of so"ware development will always be higher than that of even the fastest study project.

References

Belczyk, Arkadiusz 2007: Tłumaczenie !lmów. Wilkowice: Wydawnictwo Dla Szkoły.Carroll, Mary 2004: Subtitling: changing standards for new media. Globalization

Insider XIII/3.3. In: http://www.translationdirectory.com/article422.htm ED 09/2011.Celińska, Anna, Anna Jankowska 2011: Survey at #e 4th International Media for All

Conference – Audiovisual Translation: Taking Stock. London, June 28–July 1, 2011.Deckert, Mikołaj 2012: Language structure and meaning in English-to-Polish subtitling.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Łódź University: Institute of English.Delabastita, Dirk 1989: Translation and mass communication: Film and T.V. translation

as evidence of cultural dynamics. Babel 35 (4), 193–218.Díaz-Cintas, Jorge, Aline Remael 2007: Audiovisual Translation: Subtitling. Manchester

& Kinderhook, NY: St. Jerome Publishing.Jakobson, Roman 1959: On linguistic aspects of translation. In: Reuben Brower (ed.)

1959: On Translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 232–239. Melero, Maite, Antoni Oliver, Toni Badia 2006: Automatic multilingual subtitling in

the eTITLE project. In: Proceedings of ASLIB Translating and the Computer 28.London: ASLIB.

Romero-Fresco, Pablo 2011: Subtitling through Speech Recognition: Respeaking. Man-chester: St. Jerome Publishing.

Szarkowska, Agnieszka 2011: Text-to-speech audio description. Towards wider avail-ability of AD. Journal of Specialised Translation 15, 142–162.

Whitman-Linsen, Candace 1992: #rough the Dubbing Glass. #e Synchronization ofAmerican Motion Pictures into German, French and Spanish. Frankfurt am Main:Peter Lang.

Zabalbeascoa, Patrick 2008: !e nature of the audiovisual text and its parameters. In:Jorge Díaz-Cintas (ed.) 2008: #e Didactics of Audiovisual Translation. Amsterdam,Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 21–38.

Łukasz Bogucki42

Zabalbeascoa, Patrick 2010: Translation in constrained communication and entertain-ment. In: Jorge Díaz-Cintas, Anna Matamala, Joselia Neves (eds.) 2010: New Insightsinto Audiovisual Translation and Media Accessibility. Media for All 2. Amsterdam& New York, NY: Rodopi, 25–40.

Internet sources

http://sifnos.ilsp.gr/musa ED July 13, 2012. http://www.sysmedia.com/subtitling/o"ine_subtitling.asp ED July 13, 2012.

Streszczenie

Artykuł poświęcony jest przekładowi audiowizualnemu, roli technologii w tej odmia-nie przekładu i aktualnemu stanowi badań nad nim. Przekład audiowizualny de'niuje się jako pojęcie nieco szersze niż tłumaczenie 'lmów sensu stricto, graniczące z lokali-zacją oprogramowania (oraz stron internetowych) i przekładem słowa żywego. Autor określa oraz charakteryzuje tłumaczenie audiowizualne, uwypuklając jego podstawowe odmiany, jak dubbing i napisy 'lmowe, nie zapominając przy tym o wersji lektorskiej, audiodeskrypcji, napisach dla niesłyszących i niedosłyszących, napisach na żywo czy też nadpisach stosowanych w operach i teatrach. Badania nad przekładem audiowizu-alnym określa się jako nową, niezwykle dynamiczną i zróżnicowaną dyscyplinę nauko-wą, czerpiącą z doświadczeń przekładoznawstwa, językoznawstwa, 'lmoznawstwa, in-formatyki i innych dziedzin. Wraz z rosnącą rolą komunikacji audiowizualnej przekład materiału audiowizualnego staje się obiektem coraz częstszych działań praktyków i ba-dań teoretyków. Postęp technologiczny umożliwia ciągłe usprawnianie procesu tłuma-czenia tradycyjnymi metodami, np. w postaci napisów 'lmowych, a także powstawanie nowych, jak napisy na żywo. Autor omawia pokrótce wykorzystywane w przekładzie 'lmowym oprogramowanie, jego działanie i potencjał. Wspomniane są także nowinki

technologiczne, jak np. napisy w technologii 3D.

Abstrakt. Zarządzanie projektem tłumaczeniowym jest skomplikowanym proce-sem biznesowym, porównywalnym z wieloma procesami przemysłowymi. Niniejszy artykuł opisuje szczegółowo główne etapy zarządzania projektem, rozpoczynając od wstępnego przygotowania plików, a kończąc na ostatecznej werykacji gotowego tłu-maczenia. Autorzy, opierając się na własnych doświadczeniach, opisali nie tylko tech-niczne aspekty poszczególnych etapów zarządzania projektem, ale również podkreślili rolę każdego z nich oraz przedstawili typowe problemy z nimi związane. Świadomość złożoności zarządzania projektem tłumaczeniowym jest bardzo ważna dla wszystkich uczestników procesu tłumaczenia, od zlecających klientów do tłumaczy będących bez-pośrednimi wykonawcami.

Słowa kluczowe. Tłumaczenie, CAT, lokalizacja, projekt, kontrola jakości.

1. Wstęp

Zgodnie z tradycyjną denicją przez tłumaczenie rozumie się wyrażenie w języku docelowym treści wypowiedzi ustnej lub tekstu napisanego w języku źródłowym. Bardzo wysoki poziom ogólności tej denicji oraz szeroki zakres pojęcia „tłumaczenie” w języku polskim – odnosi się ono bowiem do tekstu pisanego (od poezji poprzez różnego rodzaju dokumenty do oprogramowania komputerowego, a nawet tekstów wyświetlanych przez urządzenia AGD), wy-powiedzi ustnych i wszelkich innych form przekazu werbalnego – prawdopo-dobnie sprawia, że tłumaczenie jest uważane za prostą czynność, jak sprzątanie czy gotowanie, niewymagającą specjalnych kwalikacji.

W języku angielskim w zakresie polskiego pojęcia „tłumaczenie” mieszczą się co najmniej trzy obszary znaczeniowe określane przez następujące terminy: trans-lation – odnoszący się do tłumaczeń dokumentów pisanych, interpreting – stoso-wany do tłumaczeń wypowiedzi ustnych, oraz localization – określający tłuma-czenia oprogramowania, treści internetowych, dokumentacji technicznej i innych form przekazu, takich jak lmy czy komunikaty na wyświetlaczach urządzeń.

Zarządzanie projektem tłumaczeniowym

w nowoczesnej #rmie jako zaawansowany

proces biznesowy

Michał Tyszkowski, Bartłomiej DymekCentrum Lokalizacji C&M, Wrocław, Polska

Michał Tyszkowski, Bartłomiej Dymek44

Ograniczenie zakresu znaczeniowego pociąga za sobą zawężenie specjali-zacji osób wykonujących odpowiednie usługi, a co za tym idzie – konieczność zwiększenia świadomości, że są to usługi specjalistyczne, wymagające odpo-wiedniego przygotowania i wiedzy fachowej, a nie tylko znajomości języka.

Celem niniejszego artykułu jest zwiększenie tej właśnie świadomości wśród odbiorców tłumaczeń w Polsce. Z racji własnej specjalizacji skupimy się na tym obszarze znaczeniowym pojęcia „tłumaczenie”, które odpowiada angielskiemu terminowi localization, a w języku polskim nazywane jest, niezbyt szczęśliwie, lokalizacją.

2. Tłumaczenie jako produkt

Tłumaczenie w znaczeniu zde(niowanym w części wstępnej jest oczywiście usługą, jednak w celu lepszego zobrazowania złożoności procesu oraz specy-(cznych wymagań stawianych osobom w nim uczestniczącym będziemy się odnosić do niego jak do produktu, który ma swój cykl życia, proces techno-logiczny, kontrolę jakości i, rzecz jasna, cenę. Przedstawienie procesu tłuma-czenia złożonych tekstów dla biznesu jako produktu ma również tę zaletę, że wyraźnie odróżnia go od typowych usług oferowanych przez indywidualnych tłumaczy, takich jak tłumaczenia ustne, przysięgłe czy tłumaczenia na potrzeby osób prywatnych.

Podobnie jak typowe produkty, tłumaczenie ma także cykl życiowy, na któ-ry składają się trzy główne etapy:

1. przygotowanie (preprocessing);

2. praca z tekstem (production);

3. wykończenie (postprocessing).Na każdym z tych etapów wykonywane są odpowiednie czynności, których

w zależności od stopnia złożoności procesu może być więcej lub mniej. Etap przygotowania składa się z następujących czynności:

– konwersja do formatu odpowiedniego dla tłumaczenia – ta czynność jest

najtrudniejsza wtedy, kiedy tekst dostarczony jest w formacie nieedytowal-

nym (np. PDF) lub zawiera elementy wymagające zabezpieczenia przed

ed

e Translator and the Computer - Wyższa Szkoła Filologiczna WSF/… · translator’s work could...

Documents

Transcript of e Translator and the Computer - Wyższa Szkoła Filologiczna WSF/… · translator’s work could...