MACHINE TRANSLATION IN THE FIELD OF LAW: A STUDY OF THE TRANSLATION OF ITALIAN LEGAL TEXTS INTO GERMAN

Main Article Content

Eva WIESMANN

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
WIESMANN, E. (2019). MACHINE TRANSLATION IN THE FIELD OF LAW: A STUDY OF THE TRANSLATION OF ITALIAN LEGAL TEXTS INTO GERMAN. Comparative Legilinguistics, 37, 117-153. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2019.37.4
Section
Articles

References

  1. Burchardt, Aljoscha, et al. 2014. Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) Definition. http://www.qt21.eu/mqm-definition/definition-2014-08-14.html (accessed May 7, 2019).
  2. Burchardt, Aljoscha, and Jörg Porsiel. 2017. Vorwort: Was kann die maschinelle Übersetzung und was nicht? In Maschinelle Übersetzung. Grundlagen für den professionellen Einsatz, ed. Jörg Porsiel, 11–8. Berlin: BDÜ-Fachverlag.
  3. Castilho, Sheila, et al. 2017. Is Neural Machine Translation the New State of the Art? The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 108: 109–20.
  4. Forcada, Mikel L. 2017. Making sense of neural machine translation. Translation Spaces 6/2: 291–309.
  5. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, et al. 2017. Post-Editing: Strategien, Qualität, Effizienz. In Maschinelle Übersetzung. Grundlagen für den professionellen Einsatz, ed. Jörg Porsiel, 176–91. Berlin: BDÜ-Fachverlag.
  6. Heiss, Christine, and Marcello Soffritti. 2018. DeepL Traduttore e didattica della traduzione dall’italiano in tedesco. Alcune valutazioni preliminari. InTRAlinea. Special Issue: Translation and Interpreting for Language Learners (TAIL). http://www.intralinea.org/specials/article/2294 (accessed September 13, 2019).
  7. Hutchins, W. John. 1995. Machine Translation: A Brief History In Concise History of the Language Sciences: from the Sumerians to the Cognitivists, eds. Ernst F. K. Koerner and R.E. Asher, 431–45. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  8. Killman, Jeffrey. 2014. Vocabulary Accuracy of Statistical Machine Translation in the Legal Context. In Third Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice, eds. Sharon O’Brian, Michel Simard and Lucia Specia, 85–98.
  9. www.amtaweb.org/AMTA2014Proceedings/AMTA2014Proceedings_PEWorkshop_final.pdf (accessed May 7, 2019).
  10. Koehn, Philipp. 2010. Statistical Machine Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Kyburz, Kevin. 2018. Schlägt sogar Google. Die Übersetzungsmaschine DeepL.
  12. https://techgarage.blog/schlaegt-sogar-google-die-uebersetzungsmaschine-deepl/ (accessed February 28, 2019).
  13. Matthiesen, Aaron J. 2017. Maschinelle Übersetzung im Wandel. Die Auswirkungen von künstlicher Intelligenz auf maschinelle Übersetzungssysteme. Mit einer vergleichenden Untersuchung von Google Translate und Microsoft Translator. Berlin: epubli.
  14. Prieto Ramos, Fernando. 2015. Quality Assurance in Legal Translation: Evaluating Process, Competence and Product in the Pursuit of Adequacy. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 28/1: 11–30.
  15. Şahin, Mehmet, and Nilgün Dungan. 2014. Translation testing and evaluation: A study on methods and needs. Translation & Interpreting 6/2: 67–90.
  16. Van Brussel, Laura, et al. 2018. A Fine-grained Error Analysis of NMT, PBMT and RBMT Output for English-to-Dutch. In Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 3799–804.
  17. https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8561558 (accessed May 8, 2019)
  18. Wallberg, Ilona. 2017. DIN EN ISO 18587 – eine Norm über den Prozess des Posteditierens. In Maschinelle Übersetzung. Grundlagen für den professionellen Einsatz, ed. Jörg Porsiel, 160–7. Berlin: BDÜ-Fachverlag.
  19. Werthmann, Antonia, and Andrea Witt. 2014. Maschinelle
  20. Übersetung – Gegenwart und Perspektiven. In Translation and Interpretation in Europe. Contributions to the Annual Conference 2013 of EFNIL in Vilnius, ed. Gerhard Stickel, 79–103. Frankfurt et al.: Lang.
  21. Yates, Sarah. 2006. Scaling the Tower of Babel Fish: An Analysis of the Machine Translation of Legal Information. Law Library Journal 98/3: 481–500.