¿Es el discurso académico preciso cuando se apoya en la traducción automática?

  1. Caro Quintana, Rocío 1
  2. Bellés-Calvera, Lucía 2
  1. 1 University of Wolverhampton
    info

    University of Wolverhampton

    Wolverhampton, Reino Unido

    ROR https://ror.org/01k2y1055

  2. 2 Universitat Jaume I
    info

    Universitat Jaume I

    Castelló de la Plana, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02ws1xc11

Zeitschrift:
Quaderns de filología. Estudis lingüístics

ISSN: 1135-416X

Datum der Publikation: 2022

Titel der Ausgabe: La traducción y las nuevas tecnologías en la era digital: aplicaciones, recursos y metodologías

Nummer: 27

Seiten: 171-201

Art: Artikel

DOI: 10.7203/QF.0.24671 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: Quaderns de filología. Estudis lingüístics

Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung

Zusammenfassung

El discurs acadèmic ha despertat interès entre investigadors i professors (Deroey, 2015; Mauranen, 2012; Hyland, 2010), en particular l'ús de marcadors metadiscursius. Tot i això, s'ha prestat poca atenció a aquestes característiques recolzades per la Traducció Automàtica (TA) en els contextos d'AICLE. L'objectiu del present article és descriure l'ús i la freqüència dels emfatitzadors i els atenuadors emprats en els àmbits de la història i la psicologia i analitzar la precisió dels equivalents obtinguts en dues plataformes de TA, en concret, DeepL i Google Translate. Per això, s'ha elaborat un petit corpus de dos seminaris i s'han aplicat mètodes qualitatius i quantitatius per determinar la freqüència i precisió dels recursos lingüístics sota estudi. Els resultats han revelat que, si bé els elements interaccionals proporcionats per la TA són precisos, es poden produir omissions i errors de traducció. Aquestes conclusions poden ser rellevants per als professors d'AICLE interessats en el discurs acadèmic, així com per als investigadors de traducció que treballen amb corpus bilingües i multilingües i avaluen l'exactitud de les eines de traducció.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Ädel, Annelie. 2010. Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2): 69-97.
  • Allen, Jeffrey. 2003. Post-editing. Benjamins Translation Library 35: 297-318.
  • Barefoot, Betsy O., & Fidler, Paul P. 1992. 1991 National Survey of Freshman Seminar Programming (Monograph No. 10). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience.
  • Bellés-Fortuño, Begoña & Querol-Julián, Mercedes. 2010. Evaluation in research article abstracts: A cross-cultural study between Spanish and English medical discourse. In Lorés-Sanz, Rosa; Mur-Dueñas, Pilar, & Lafuente-Millán, Enrique (eds.) Constructing Interpersonality. Multiple Perspectives on Written Academic Genres. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 83-98.
  • Bellés-Fortuño, Begoña. 2018. Evaluative language in medical discourse: A contrastive study between English and Spanish university lectures. Languages in Contrast 18(2): 155-174.
  • Bogdanovic, Vesna & Mirovic, Ivana. 2018. Young Researchers Writing in ESL and the Use of Metadiscourse: Learning the Ropes. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 18(4), 813-830.
  • Bojar, Ondrej; Federmann, Christian; Fishel, M.; Graham, Yvette; Haddow, Barry; Huck, Matthias, Koehn, Philipp & Monz, Christof. 2018. Findings of the 2018 Conference on Machine Translation (WMT18). In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), Volume 2: Shared Task Papers). Bruxelles: Association for Computational Linguistics, 272-307.
  • Breuer, Esther & Archer, Arlene. 2016. Multimodality in Higher Education. Leiden: Brill.
  • Broggini, S. & Murphy, A. C. 2017. Metadiscourse in EMI lectures: Reflections on a small corpus of spoken academic discourse. L’Analisi Linguistica e Letteraria XXV (2): 75-91.
  • Cenoz, Jasone. 2013. Defining Multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 33: 3-18. doi: 10.1017/S026719051300007X
  • Çetiner, Caner & İşisağ, Korkut Uluç. 2019. Undergraduate Level Translation Students’ Attitudes towards Machine Translation Post-Editing Training. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching 7(1): 110-120.
  • Charles, Maggie. 2013. English for academic purposes. The handbook of English for specific purposes 1: 137-153.
  • Cheng, Yong. (2019). Joint Training for Pivot-Based Neural Machine Translation. In Cheng, Y. (ed.) Joint Training for Neural Machine Translation. Springer Theses. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9748-7_4
  • Chu, Chenhui & Wang, Rui. 2020. A Survey of Domain Adaptation for Machine Translation. Journal of Information Processing 28: 413-426.
  • Coyle, Do; Hood, Phillip, & Marsh, David. 2010. CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Curry, Mary Jane & Lillis, Theresa. 2018. Global Academic Publishing. Policies, perspectives, and pedagogies. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Curzon, Leslie Basil. 2003. Teaching in further education: An outline of principles and practice (6th ed.). London / New York: Continuum.
  • D’Angelo, Larissa. 2018. PowerPoint presentations in the classroom: Re-evaluating the genre. Language Value 10(1): 29-46.
  • Dabre, Raj, Imankulova, Aizhan, Kaneko, Masahiro, & Chakrabarty, Abhisek. 2021. Simultaneous multi-pivot neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.07410.
  • Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 2011. Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of applied linguistics 31: 182-204.
  • DeepL. n. d. DeepL. https://www.deepl.com/translator Deroey, Katrien L. B. 2015. Marking importance in lectures: Interactive and textual orientation. Applied Linguistics 36(1): 51-72.
  • Deroey, Katrien L. B. & Taverniers, Miriam. 2012. Just remember this: Lexicogrammatical relevance markers in lectures. English for Specific Purposes 31(4): 221- 233.
  • Edwards, John. 2004. Bilingualism: Contexts, constraints, and identities. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23(1): 135-141.
  • Engwall, Lars. 2016. The internationalisation of higher Education. European Review 24(2): 221-231.
  • European Commission. 2015. Language teaching and learning in multilingual classrooms. Education and Training. https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/languages/library/studies/multilingual-classroom_en.pdf [Access 12/04/2020]
  • European Commission. 2020. Education and Training: About multilingualism policy. https://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/multilingualism/about-multilingualism-policy_en [Access 20/07/2020]
  • Farghal, Mohammed & Kalakh, Bushra. 2019. Engagement in Translation: Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in American Presidential Debates. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures 12(1): 103-22.
  • Farrokhi, Farahmand & Ashrafi, Somayeh. 2009. Textual metadiscourse resources in research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning 212: 39-75.
  • Flowerdew, John. 1994. Research of relevance to second language lecture comprehension: An overview. Academic listening: Research perspectives: 7-29.
  • Gallardo del Puerto, Francisco, Gómez-Lacabex, Esther, & García-Lecumberri, María Luisa. 2009. Testing the effectiveness of content and language integrated learning in foreign language contexts the assessment of English pronunciation. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Yolanda & Jiménez Catalán, Rosa María (eds.) Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from research in Europe. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, 63-80.
  • Garone, Anja, Van de Craen, Piet, & Struyven, Katrien. 2020. Multilingual nursing education: Nursing students’ and teachers’ interests, perceptions and expectations. Nurse Education Today 86, 104311: 1-6.
  • Google Translate. n. d. Google Translate. https://translate.google.com/
  • Graddol, David. 1999. The decline of the native speaker. The AILA Review 13: 57-66.
  • Groves, Michael & Mundt, Klauss. 2015. Friend or foe? Google Translate in language for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes 37, 112-121.
  • Hamel, Rainer Enrique. 2013. El campo de las ciencias y la educación superior entre el monopolio del inglés y el plurilingüismo: Elementos para una política del lenguaje en América Latina. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada 52(2): 321-384.
  • Harry, Drew; Gordon, Eric, & Schmandt, Chris. 2012. Setting the stage for interaction: a tablet application to augment group discussion in a seminar class. In Poltrock, Steven; Simone, Carla; Grudin, Jonathan; Mark, Gloria & Riedl, John (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 1071-1080.
  • Hassan, Hany; Aue, Anthony; Chen, Chang; Chowdhary, Vishal; Clark, Jonathan; Federmann, Christian; Huang, Xuedong; Junczys-Dowmunt, Marcin; Lewis, William; Li, Mu; Liu, Shujie; Liu, Tie-Yan; Luo, Renqian; Menezes, Arul; Qin, Tao; Seide, Frank; Tan, Xu; Tian, Fei; Lijun, Wu; Wu, Shuangzhi; Xia, Yingce; Zhang, Dongdong; Zhang, Zhirui, & Zhou, Ming. 2018. Achieving human parity on automatic chinese to english news translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05567.
  • Hazelkorn, Ellen. 2011. Measuring world-class excellence and the global obsession with rankings. In King, Roger; Marginson, Simon, & Naidoo, Rajani (eds.) Handbook on globalization and higher education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 497-516.
  • Hultgren, Anna Kristina. 2014. English language use at the internationalised universities of Northern Europe: Is there a correlation between Englishisation and world rank? Multilingua 33(3-4): 389-411.
  • Hutchins, W. John. 1995. Machine translation: A brief history. In Koerner, Ernst Frideryk Konrad & Asher, Ronald E. (eds.) Concise history of the language sciences. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 431-445.
  • Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse. London / New York: Continuum.
  • Hyland, Ken. 2010. Metadiscourse: Mapping Interactions in Academic Writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2): 125-143.
  • Hyland, Ken. 2017. Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics 113: 16-29.
  • Jover, Gonzalo; Fleta, Teresa, & González, Rosa. 2016. Pre-service education of primary school teachers in the context of foreign language bilingual teaching. Bordón. Revista de pedagogía 68(2): 121-135.
  • Ko, Wei-Jen; El-Kishky, Ahmed El-Kishky; Renduchintala, Adithya; Chaudhary, Vishrav; Goyal, Naman; Guzmán, Francisco; Fung, Pascale; Koehn, Philipp, & Diab, Mona (2021). Adapting high-resource NMT models to translate low-resource related languages without parallel data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.15071.
  • Kraker, Myra J. 2000. Classroom discourse: Teaching, learning, and learning disabilities. Teaching and Teacher Education 16(3): 295-313.
  • Kuteeva, Maria, & Mauranen, Anna. 2018. Digital academic discourse: Texts and contexts: Introduction. Discourse, Context & Media 24: 1-7.
  • Lanvers, Ursula, & Hultgren, Anna Kristina. 2018. The Englishization of European education: foreword. European Journal of Language Policy 10(1): 1-11.
  • Lasagabaster, David. 2012. El papel del inglés en el fomento del multilingüismo en la universidad. ELIA. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada 12: 13-44.
  • Läubli, Samuel; Castilho, Sheila; Neubig, Graham; Sennrich, Rico; Shen, Qinlan, & Toral, Antonio. 2020. A set of recommendations for assessing human–machine parity in language translation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 67: 653-672.
  • Läubli, Samuel; Senrich, Rico, & Volk, Martin. 2018. Has machine translation achieved human parity? a case for document-level evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.07048, 2018.
  • Lee, Joseph J. & Subtirelu, Nicholas C. 2015. Metadiscourse in the classroom: A comparative analysis of EAP lessons and university lectures. English for Specific Purposes 37: 52-62.
  • Livingstone, Kerwin Anthony. 2019. Examining the Use of Metadiscourse Markers in Academic Writing. International Journal 5(3): 244-254.
  • Llinares, Ana & Morton, Tom. 2010. Historical explanations as situated practice in content and language integrated learning. Classroom Discourse 1(1): 46-65.
  • Llinares, Ana, & Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 2015. The role of different tasks in CLIL students’ use of evaluative language. System 54: 69-79.
  • Llinares, Ana, Morton, Tom, & Whittaker, Rachel. 2012. The Role of Language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lorenzo, Francisco; Casal, Sonia, & Moore, Pam. 2010. The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied linguistics 31(3): 418- 442.
  • Martin, James R., & White, Peter R. R. (2005). The evaluation of language: Appraisal in English. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Mauranen, Anna. 1993. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economic texts. English for Specific Purposes 12: 3-22.
  • Mauranen, Anna. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • McIntyre, Dan. 2009. History of English: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.
  • Molino, Alessandra. 2017. Repetition and rephrasing in physical sciences and engineering English-medium lectures in Italy. In Boggio, Cecilia & Molino, Alessandra (eds.) English in Italy: Linguistic, educational and professional challenges. Milano: FrancoAngeli, 182-202.
  • Molino, Alessandra. 2018. “What I’m Speaking Is Almost English…”: A Corpus-Based Study of Metadiscourse in English-Medium Lectures at an Italian University. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 18(4): 935-956.
  • Morell, Teresa. 2015. International paper conference presentations: A multimodal analysis to determine effectiveness. English for Specific Purposes 37: 137-150.
  • Morell, Teresa. 2020. EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists. Language Value 12(1): 56-87.
  • Müller, Mathias; Rios, Annette; Voita, Elena & Sennrich, Rico. 2018. A large-scale test set for the evaluation of context-aware pronoun translation in neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation. Belgium, Brussels: Association for Computational Linguistics, 61-72.
  • O’Boyle, Neil. 2015. The risks of ‘university speak’: relationship management and identity negotiation by mature students off campus. International Studies in Sociology of Education 25(2): 93-111.
  • O’Brien, Sharon. 2022. How to deal with errors in machine translation: Postediting. Machine translation for everyone: Empowering users in the age of artificial intelligence 18: 105.
  • Pérez-Ortiz, Juan Antonio; Forcada, Mikel L., & Sánchez-Martínez, Felipe. 2022. How neural machine translation works. Machine translation for everyone: Empowering users in the age of artificial intelligence 18, 141.
  • Popel, Martin. 2018. CUNI Transformer Neural MT System for WMT18. In Proceedings of WMT. Brussels, Belgium: Association for Computational Linguistics, 486-491.
  • Popovic, Maja, & Castilho, Sheila. 2019. Are ambiguous conjunctions problematic for machine translation? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP 2019). Varna, Bulgaria: INCOMA Ltd, 959-966.
  • Rescigno, Argentina Anna; Vanmassenhove, Eva; Monti, Johanna, & Way, Andy. 2020. A Case Study of Natural Gender Phenomena in Translation. A Comparison of Google Translate, Bing Microsoft Translator and DeepL for English to Italian, French and Spanish. In CLiC-it.
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Yolanda; Sierra, Juan Manuel, & Gallardo del Puerto, Francisco. 2011. Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts. Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Shterionov, Dimitar; Nagle, Pat; Casanellas, Laura; Superbo, Riccardo, & O’Dowd, Tony. 2017. Empirical evaluation of NMT and PBSMT quality for large-scale translation production. In 20th Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, EAMT 2017. Praha, 74-79.
  • Simpson, Rita C.; Briggs, Sarah L.; Ovens, Janine, & Swales, John M. 2002. The Michigan corpus of academic spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
  • Soter, Anna O.; Wilkinson, Ian A.; Murphy, P. Karen; Rudge, Lucila; Reninger, Kristin, & Edwards, Margaret. 2008. What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research 47(6): 372-391.
  • Stasimioti, Maria & Sosoni, Vilelmini. 2019. Undergraduate Translation Students’ Performance and Attitude vis-à-vis Machine Translation and Post-editing: Does Training Play a Role? In 41st Translating and the Computer Conference (TC41) Proceedings. London: The International Association for Advancement in Language Technology (AsLing), 125-136.
  • Stavans, Anat & Hoffmann, Charlotte. 2015. Multilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Swales, John. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sylvén, Liss Kerstin. 2017. Motivation, second language learning and CLIL. Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL, 51-66.
  • Takimoto, Masahiro. 2015. A corpus-based analysis of hedges and boosters in English academic articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 5(1): 95-105.
  • Thompson, Geoff. 2001. Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the readers. Applied Linguistics 22: 58-78.
  • Universitat Jaume I. 2019. Estratègia de convivència i promoció lingüística ECOPOL. http://documents.uji.es/alfresco/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/e83e1f8b-7593- 4212-8015-abea76bf34d8/XX_SLTJM_ECOPOLfinal-oct19.pdf?guest=true
  • Van Rensburg, Alta; Snyman, Cobus, & Lotz, Susan. 2012. Applying Google Translate in a higher education environment: Translation products assessed. Southern African linguistics and applied language studies 30(4): 511-524.
  • Williams, Malcolm. 2010. Translating Metadiscourse: An Explanatory Analysis of Problems in Students’ Work. Mutatis Mutandis: Revista Latinoamericana de Traducción 3(1): 73-90.
  • Zare, Javad & Tavakoli, Mansoor. 2016. The use of personal metadiscourse over monologic and dialogic modes of academic speech. Discourse Processes 54(2): 163- 175.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet