As with any tool or process, we need to take a careful look at its potential benefits and its disadvantages. An honest look. And we need to ask ourselves who benefits?
Today, I would like to come clean. To make a confession. Or perhaps several confessions…
In a recent project, I shocked a German colleague with whom I was preparing a quotation when I remarked that the job was a perfect candidate for machine pseudo-translation. It was
- highly structured catalog text with many errors and
- pattern-based rule sets were needed to identify the errors and cope with the mind-numbing work. I used memoQ auto-translatables to cope with the challenge, but a customized MpT process would have been even better.
- The inability of my conversation partner to spell often compromised the machine results… but in this case, the final result was greater attention to the human communication, because both sides were committed to understanding.
- Without a good background in several languages, the essentially monolingual person was unable to cope or even recognize many of the machine translation errors. This reminded me of the dangerous absurdity of monolingual post-editing.
- Opposition to post-editing processes with the potential of unmitigated mental damage and deterioration of one's communication skills
- Opposition to compensation models which require more work for less pay which discourage professional and personal development of sustainable nature
- Opposition to individuals and organizations whose true objective is the disempowerment of professionals and the hamsterization of communication processes
|Photo credit: Danielle Gehrmann|