Impacts of MT and social media on language services

  • 509 views
Uploaded on

Translation in 21st Century Impacts of MT and social media on language services

Translation in 21st Century Impacts of MT and social media on language services

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
509
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Translaon  in  21st  Century  Impacts  of  MT  and  social  media  on  language  services  Rahzeb  Choudhury  9  February  2011  
  • 2. T21:  key  themes  Content  explosion  –  self  evident  Content  disrupon  –  Some  created  by  companies  …most  created  by  users….oDen  social  media,  add  mulmedia  (audio,  video,  animaon),  embracing  “good  enough”  (praccal  is  more  important  than  preKy  and  perfect)  Content  differenaon  –  Assessing  aKributes  of  ulity,  meliness,  sensivity  Technology  –  open/interoperable,  collaborave,  machine  translaon  Translaon  as  a  ulity…  
  • 3. Standards  and  interoperability  LISA  -­‐TAUS  survey,  Jan-­‐Feb  2011  93  companies  to  date  Define  interoperability  Op0ons   %  responded  Standard  format  for  exchange  of   76  terminology  Standard  format  for  exchange  of  translaon   77  memory  Standard  for  interacon  of  content   75  management  systems  with  translaon  management  systems  and  MT  Standard  business  process   21  
  • 4. Standards  and  interoperability  LISA  -­‐TAUS  survey,  Jan-­‐Feb  2011  93  companies  to  date   Conclusion:   Material  issue!  Lack  of  interoperability:  cost  to  your  business   %  responded  <5%   10  Between  5-­‐10%   12  Between  10-­‐20%   14  Between  20-­‐30%   12  More  than  30%   14  Don’t  know   40  
  • 5. Standards  and  interoperability  LISA  -­‐TAUS  survey,  January-­‐February  2011   Acon:  Surveillance  93  companies  to  date   of  compliance?  Biggest  barrier   Average  ra0ng  Lack  of  compliance  to  interchange  formats   3.08  Few  suppliers  dominate  the  market   2.97  No  capable  umbrella/organizing  body   2.96  Apathy   2.77  Industry  is  immature   2.75  No  budget  to  deal  with  problem   2.65  
  • 6. MT  and  the  Dutch  market   ATA-­‐TAUS  survey,  December  2010   31  companies   18  companies:  Most:  revenue  > revenue  <€500k  pa  €1m  pa   We  operate   MT  inhouse   and  provide   We  do  not   PE   provide  PE   13  companies  –   19%   74%   not  suitable  for   the  content  we   We  regularly   translate   provide  PE   7%   10  –  We  are   looking  into   providing  PE  
  • 7. MT  and  the  Dutch  market  ATA-­‐TAUS  survey,  December  2010  Sample:  31  companies  MT  Users  (#6)  1  uses  Moses,  1  licenses  soDware  and  is  trialing  Moses,  4  license  MT  vendor  soDware  Pros  -­‐    Speed,  efficiency,  compeve  advantage  Cons  -­‐  Customizaon  me,  quality  of  output  not  always  up  to  scratch  We  go  deeper  with  presenta0ons  from:  Ge7ng  started  with  MT:  Nathalie  De  Su>er,  Cross  Language  Trialing  Moses:  Raymund  Prins,  Global  Textware  Managing  source  text  :  Bert  Bourgonje,  L&L  MT    and  client  requirements:  Wayne  Bourland,  Dell,  and  John  Dixon,  ALS  
  • 8. European  MT  providers  European  proprietary  MT  vendors:  MorphoLogic,  Linguatec,  Lucy  SoDware,  SynTHEMA,  Systran,  Ta  with  you  …..most  took  many  years  and  millions  to  come  to  market  European  SMEs  with  open  source  based  soluons:  Applied  Language  Soluons,  Cross  Language,  Eleka,  LanguageLens,  Pangeanic,  Promsit  Language  Engineering,  Simple  ShiD,  Translated.net…..came  to  market  more  recently,  much  faster  and  cheaper.  A  couple  are  growing  rapidly…  Something  even  more  radical  –  presenta0on  by    TranslaNon  by  the  hour:  David  Sowerby,  Straker  SoPware…example  of  a  new  innovaNve  market  entrant…  
  • 9. How  long  ago  did  you  first  download  the   Moses  Decoder?  Less  than  1  month  ago   1-­‐3  months  ago  3-­‐6  months  ago   6-­‐12  months  ago   7%   9%   11%   55%   18%   Source:  EuroMatrixPlus-­‐TAUS,  Jan-­‐Feb  2011   Sample:  45  organizaons  to  date  
  • 10. We  are  in  the  following  phase:   0%  Pilong   4%  Implementaon  Producon   33%   47%  Not  using  Moses  Not  applicable  (please  explain  why  briefly)   16%   Source:  EuroMatrixPlus-­‐TAUS,  Jan-­‐Feb  2011   Sample:  45  organizaons  to  date  
  • 11. Main  purpose  of  survey  to  focus  developments  on  main  areas  for  improvement.  Respondents  advise:  1.  Needs  to  be  easier  to  integrate  into  workflow   (A  soluon  -­‐  Moses4Localizaon  –  available  March  2011)  2.  Faster  training  and  translaon  speed    (Esp  for  online  service  -­‐  Number  of  projects  underway  -­‐    expect  significant  improvements  within  18  months  or  earlier)  3.  Wider  range  of  languages  where  sasfactory  results    (This  is  the  main  focus  of  academic  research)  4.  Needs  to  be  easier  to  install  and  use    (Expect  improvements  within  6  months)   Source:  EuroMatrixPlus  and  TAUS,  Jan-­‐Feb  2011   Sample:  45  organizaons  to  date  
  • 12. MT  adopon  –  on  course  for  B...or  C   (thousands  of  MT  systems)   Scenario CMT  providers   Scenario B – two dozen Time   providers Scenario A – very few large players dominate MT  customers  
  • 13. A  passionate   language   community  
  • 14. Clients  would  ideally  like  a  passionate  language  community   Why?   • A  boost  to  translaon  resources   • Can  improve  brand  percepon   • Enhance  user  experiences   • Engage  people  to  get  feedback  
  • 15. Approaches  to  community  translaon   •  Social  network  members  becoming  the  community  of  translators   •  Virally  recruited  and  self  organizing  crowds   •  Communies  of  product  users  who  benefit  directly  from  the   translaon.  ODen  recognized  as  authors.  Most  oDen  used  for  second   er  languages,  where  there  is  a  shortage  of  translated  material.  The   process  is  managed  by  and  posteding  done  by  vendors   •  Communies  who  postedit  MT  output  for  non  commercial  content     • Open  source  product  communies  with  ideological  movaons   •  Internal  employee  communies,  such  as  for  in-­‐house  content  that   is  not  postedited   •  In  B2B  sectors,  resellers/partners  who  act  as  the  community  in   smaller  markets  to  benefit  from  increases  in  sales  revenue/barter   arrangements  and  in  some  cases  share  support  revenue  
  • 16. Two  approaches  to  quality  assurance   • The  first  leaves  it  to  the  crowd.  Here  there  may  be   awards,  group  vong,  peer  review,  rankings  and   somemes  a  general  acceptance  that  usefulness  rather   than  publishable  quality  is  the  required  benchmark     • The  second  approach  uses  a  validaon  stage  involving   professional  linguists  who  postedit  
  • 17. Issues   • Difficulty  in  pressuring  a  crowd,  say  to  meet  a  deadline     • Difficulty  in  controlling  file  standards  and  benefits  to  the   TM  database   • Firewall  issues  which  are  solve  d  by  translaon  taking   place  in  discussion  forums  
  • 18. The  toolkit   “Unlimited  user  licenses,  terminology  management,   clean  and  intuive  translaon  interface,  translaon   suggesons,  automac  TM  updater,  MT  suggesons,   aliases  and  IDs,  admin  rights  for  language  managers,  in-­‐ context  translaon  workbench,  simple  debugger  and   resource  editor.  “     Stephan  Cocron  of  VeriSign  Inc.  
  • 19. Join us in Barcelona if youwant to go deeper