EN

UNITED KINGDOM

German Language Culture Events About us Locations

Culture Literature and Translation A.I. and Literary Translation Can Artificial Intelligence help Lit…

Digital Translation Tools

CAN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE HELP

LITERARY TRANSLATORS?

AI supporting human translators | Philippos Vassiliades | CC-BY-SA

How is literary translation different from other forms of translation? To oversimplify

a little, non-literary translation such as commercial, legal, medical etc. tends to
focus on the meaning of a text, while literary translation focuses almost equally
strongly on the style of the text.

By Roy Youdale

Literary style concerns not only what is said, but how it is said. The literary critic Terry
Eagleton suggests that literary writing ‘is the kind of writing in which content is
inseparable from the language in which it is represented’. For example, the two
sentences below basically mean the same thing but the way this is expressed is quite
different, as is the reading experience involved.

1. She picked a purple bluebell from the ground.

2. Purple was the colour of that sign of spring she plucked from the earth, the bluebell.

To translate sentence 2 as if it was sentence 1 would be a serious distortion of the

original.

So a literary translator has to take account of style as well as content, which involves
making linguistic choices and it is often said that no two translators will translate the
same text in exactly the same way. So how do literary translators go about trying to
recreate both the meaning of a text and what they perceive to beits effects on the
reader? Basically by looking for patterns of language used in the original and attempting
to recreate them in another language, a process I call ‘creative reverse engineering’.

A.I. AND THE DETECTION OF LINGUISTIC PATTERNS

Human beings are both creatures of habit and individuals. Just as we always walk in a
particular way, different from other people, and have unique fingerprints, so when we
write we use both conscious and unconscious patterns of expression. These can be
used to identify us as writers and become important factors when someone translates
our writing into another language. Some of these linguistic patterns are relatively easy to
spot. If a writer uses a lot of slang or goes in for big words like discombobulated, this is
easily noticed. However, there are important aspects of literary style which affect the
experience of the reader which are not so easily detected. These include things like
sentence length, the use of punctuation and repetition. If we are unaware of the existence
and importance of these linguistic patterns we cannot attempt to recreate them in a
literary translation.

What if artificial intelligence (AI) could help translators identify linguistic patterns used by
a writer? The good news is that it can, and in increasingly sophisticated ways. Software
such as Sketch Engine can, with a couple of mouse clicks, list all the words in a text
according their frequency of occurrence; produce an analysis of sentence length (both
overall average sentence length and a breakdown of the number of sentences consisting
of 2, 3, 4, etc. words); list n-grams (repeated sequences of 2, 3, 4, etc. words) by length
and frequency of occurrence; and analyse lexical richness (the number of different types
of words expressed as a proportion of the total number of words), amongst other
things. The text-visualisation programme Voyant Tools can display various linguistic
features of a text visually, showing word frequency as a word cloud and the frequency of
usage of individual words and phrases across a text as a graph. The text analysis
programme Coh-Metrix provides over 200 statistical measures of language use and
readability with a single click.

Finding a variety of linguistic patterns in the original text to be translated is one thing, but
having found them, how is the translator going to recreate them in another language?
What if AI could do more than just analyse linguistic patterns prompted by the translator
and actually do some translating on its own? Again, as anyone who has ever used
Google Translate will know, the answer is that it can and in different ways. Another article
in this dossier, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Literary Translation’, shows how fully
automated neural machine translation (NMT) has been used to translate literature in the
last few years. The article and the research it cites suggest that while fully automated
literary translation has a long way to go before it can hope to match human translation,
its use as a form of first draft which is then edited (‘post-edited’ in the jargon) by a
translator is being taken more seriously. But there is another way in which AI can be used
by the literary translator: to make real-time translation suggestions as they type.

A.I. AND THE CONVERGENCE OF TWO TRANSLATION TECHNOLOGIES

To understand this it is first necessary to briefly explain how computer-aided translation
(CAT) software, used by almost all non-literary and a few literary translators, works. CAT
tools, as these software programs are referred to, were developed in the 1960s and
1970s and have been available commercially since the 1980s. The technology at their
heart is called the translation memory (TM). The idea behind this is that a translator
should never need to translate the same sentence twice when it crops up again in a text.
In other words, as a translator works their way through a document the program
automatically stores everything that is translated, and when an already translated
sentence is presented again for translation the program recognises this and offers the
translator the translation s/he has already done, thus saving both time and energy and
also helping to ensure consistency of translation, which is often very important. It has
been shown that CAT tools work best on texts which are repetitive, linguistically regular
and are written in fairly short sentences.

The CAT tool user interface usually presents the text to be translated in the form of a
table, broken up into sentences (or ‘segments’ as they are called), each occupying a
single cell. This ‘source’ text as it is called appears in the left-hand column of the table,
while the right-hand column provides empty cells into which the translation, or ‘target’
text, is typed, as shown here:
Smartcat translation interface | Roy Youdale | Smartcat | CC-BY-SA

In Smartcat, a free online CAT tool, a pane appears to the right of the columns shown in
the screenshot in which automated TM suggestions appear, which the translator can
accept or reject. In the early CAT tools all such suggestions were only taken from the
database of the already translated segments in the current document. However, the
range of sources of translation suggestions in CAT tools has increased very substantially
since then. It is now possible to import a TM from one or more related translations into a
CAT tool; to draw on, and also create, specialised glossaries (or ‘term bases’); and to
search the TMs to see how individual words and phrases have already been translated,
as well as complete sentences. A game-changer in this respect has been the
incorporation of machine translation (MT) into CAT tools.

MT basically uses a computer to search and compare the words in a source text with
very large databases (billions of words) of texts already translated into the target
language. In addition to the translation of individual words, the computer searches for
corresponding sequences of words or ‘strings’, a process known as ‘string matching’.
With advances in the latest kind of machine translation, NMT, computers can now not
only look for direct string matches but can also scan the context of each sentence,
looking at the surrounding sentences. This helps to deal with problems of ambiguity that
arise with words like ‘right’, for example, which can mean a direction, correct, fair or an
entitlement. It is the ability of CAT tools to use MT databases well as TMs and term bases
when making translation suggestions that shows AI in action.
INTEGRATION OF MT INTO CAT TOOLS
There are two main ways in which translation suggestions generated by the combined
resources of TMs and MT databases are now built into CAT tools. The first involves the
software coming up with a suggestion for the complete translation of the segment being
worked on, i.e. a whole sentence. The translator can then accept the suggestion, reject it
or edit it. This is often called the post-editing approach. The other way involves
using interactive machine translation (ITM). Here the software uses the same range of
resources but presents the results in real time in the form of suggested auto-completions,
exactly like predictive texting. As translation researchers Anna Zaretskaya, Gloria Corpas
Pastor and Miriam Seghiri explain: “The suggestions are computed each time a character
is typed, and the user can accept them by pressing a special key or reject them by
continuing typing. This way the system continuously adapts the suggestions while the
user is typing,” effectively ‘learning’ as it goes.

Here, we see this in operation in one of the newer CAT tools, Lilt.
This has the potential to increase translators’ creativity
by offering them translation solutions which they may
not have come up with by themselves. On the other
hand, some translators experience this system as
applying pressure on them to accept the suggested
auto-completion, thus actually limiting their creativity. Real-time translation suggestion in Lilt |
Roy Youdale | Smartcat | CC-BY-SA

LITERARY TRANSLATORS AND CAT TOOLS

Most literary translators do not use CAT tools for their translations. They argue that such
tools do not work for the kind of language found in literary texts and they are also often
uncomfortable with a user interface which breaks up the text into isolated sentences,
thus depriving them of the context of the paragraph, page or chapter which is so often
needed when dealing with narrative. They also tend to reject the MT of literature, pointing
to the poor quality of the output from programs like Google Translate, and arguing that in
order to translate literature translators have to know much more than just the meaning of
the words on the page. They also need to understand cultural, political and historical
references, idiomatic expressions and everything that makes up what we call ‘real world
knowledge’.

Attitudes do seem to be changing, however, and younger literary translators in particular

seem more willing to consider experimenting with CAT tools. While it is true that the
benefit of not having to repeat the translation of whole sentences is usually much less of
an advantage in literary translation where the degree of such repetition is often much
lower, other features offered by CAT tools in principle apply equally well to all types of
translation. These include the ability to:
— easily find your place in a translation after a break or moving away to look something
up, making it less likely that you will miss out sentences in the translation, something
which is surprisingly easy to do
— view your previous versions of each completed segment, reminding you of how you
arrived at the current version and allowing you to revise it if necessary
— search the translation to see how you have translated a particular word or phrase
before
— export a translation in different formats, such as a sentence-aligned table or a
standard Word document.

CONCLUSION

“ [One definition of artificial intelligence is] the

theory and development of computer systems able
to perform tasks normally requiring human
intelligence, such as visual perception, speech
recognition, decision-making, and translation
between languages.
Oxford Dictionary

While a computer cannot (yet) create wordplay or understand the concept of register –
the tone and degree of formality of a piece of language – it is very good at counting and
categorising words and carrying out huge searches for string matches. In both semi- and
fully-automated ways it can help the literary translator in her/his work. Where, when and
how AI and computers are used in literary translation is still a relatively new field, which is
coming to be called computer-aided literary translation (CALT), and one which involves a
delicate and constantly shifting balance between human and machine.
It is appropriate to reflect on the current state of that balance.

Definitions:
— CAT (Computer-Aided Translation)
— ITM (Interactive Machine Translation)
— NMT (Neural Machine Translation)
— Text-Visualisation
— TM (Translation Memory)
— Word cloud

References:

Boase-Beier, J. (2010) Stylistic Approaches to Translation. 3rd edn. London and New
York: Routledge.

Chan, S.-W. (2015) ‘Computer-aided translation: major concepts’, in Chan, S.-W. (ed.)
The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Technology. London and New York:
Routledge, pp. 32–67.

Doherty, S. (2015) ‘The Impact of Translation Technologies on the Process and Product of
Translation’, International Journal of Communication, 9 (February), pp. 1–23. doi:
10.1300/J009v26n03_04.

Eagleton, T. (2014) How to Read Literature. New Haven and London: Yale University
Press.

Garcia, I. (2015) ‘Computer-aided translation: systems’, in Chan, S.-W. (ed.) The

Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Technology. London and New York: Routledge,
pp. 68–87.

Lombardino, R. (2014) Why I Use A CAT Tool To Translate Books, eWordNews.

Melby, A. and Wright, S. (2015) ‘Translation Memory’, in Chan, S.-W. (ed.) The Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Technology. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 662–677.

O’Hagan, M. (ed.) (2020) The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology.

Abingdon and New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315311258.

Prachi, K. ‘An Introduction to N-grams: What Are They and Why Do We Need Them?’

Rothwell, A. and Youdale, R. (forthcoming) ‘Computer-Assisted Translation (CAT) tools,

translation memory and literary translation’, in Deane-Cox, S. and Spiessens, A. (eds.)
The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Memory. London and New York: Routledge.

Ruffo, P. (2018) ‘Human-Computer Interaction in Translation : Literary Translators on

Technology and Their Roles’, in Proceedings of the 40th Conference Translating and the
Computer. London: AsLing, pp. 127–131.
Schiaffino, R. (2016) CAT tools and translation style, About Translation. Available at:
http://www.aboutranslation.com/2016/04/cat-tools-and-translation-style.html.

Slessor, S. (2020) ‘Tenacious technophobes or nascent technophiles? A survey of the

technological practices and needs of literary translators’, Perspectives. Taylor & Francis,
28 (2), pp. 238–252. doi: 10.1080/0907676x.2019.1645189.

Wasaty.pl (2019) ‘Literary translations with CAT tools’. October 20.

Youdale, R. (2020) Using computers in the translation of literary style: challenges and
opportunities. London & New York: Routledge.

Zaretskaya, A., Pastor, G. and Seghiri, M. (2015) ‘Integration of machine translation in

CAT tools: State of the art, evaluation and user attitudes’, SKASE Journal of Translation
and Interpretation, 8 (1), pp. 76–88.

AUTHOR
Roy Youdale is a Research Associate in Translation Studies at the University of Bristol,
where he completed his PhD in 2017. He has taught final-year undergraduate translation
and his research is on computer-assisted literary translation, in particular the use of CAT
tools, corpus linguistics and text-visualisation in the practice of literary translation. He is
the author of "Using Computers in the Translation of Literary Style: Challenges and
Opportunities" (2020) and has presented his work at the universities of Bristol, Swansea,
Manchester and East Anglia, and at symposia in Rome and Utrecht. He is also a literary
translator from Spanish.

Copyright: Text: Goethe-Institut, Roy Youdale. This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

September 2020

 0 Comments

 share  tweet  share

 Data privacy

 Print article
COMMENTS COMMENT | GO TO NEWEST COMMENT

COMMENT LOG-IN

Your comment

PUBLISH

 Back to "A.I. and Literary Translation"

TOP 