Abstract
Extensive research has been done on typologies of machine translation(MT) errors, but one subset of mistranslation—misinformation—is relatively understudied. Unlike other types of mistranslation, misinformation does not necessarily affect the readability or coherence of the translation, but will inhibit target readers from accessing the accurate information presented in the source text. It is unreasonable to expect post-editors(PE) to devote the equivalent levels of time and effort on the MT pre-translated text as in traditional translation projects, given that PE tasks have relatively lower pay but identical, if not tighter, deadlines. To gain more understanding on the concept of misinformation with the aim to improve the efficiency and accuracy of post-editors’ work, this study analyzed four English to Chinese MT texts to categorize the misinformation instances, observe distribution patterns of error types, and evaluate their levels of recognition difficulty. It was observed that the highest number of misinformation instances fell into the category of polysemy/named-entity errors, attributing to around half of all misinformation instances. The second most common misinformation category is the non-equivalent rhetoric/idiomatic expression. To help post-editors identify the hard-to-recognize misinformation, we propose three different approaches: (1) use interactive MT platforms or CAT tools that can provide alternative translation suggestions; (2) compare MT results generated by multiple MT tools, as the discrepancies in translations can alert post-editors of potential misinformation; (3) compare the original source text with the back translation result of MT to identify non-equivalent rhetorical/idiomatic expressions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Turovsky, B.: Found in translation: more accurate, fluent sentences in Google Translate. Google Blog the Keyword (2016). https://blog.google/products/translate/found-translation-more-accurate-fluent-sentences-google-translate/, Accessed 21 Jan 2022
Caswell, I., Liang, B.: Recent advances in google translate. google AI blog (2020). https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/06/recent-advances-in-google-translate.html, Accessed 21 Jan 2022
Le, Q.V., Schuster, M.: A neural network for machine translation, at production scale. Google AI Blog (2016). https://ai.googleblog.com/2016/09/a-neural-network-for-machine.html, Accessed 27 Jan 2022
打败两款国际知名翻译引擎。 解析网易有道神经机器翻译模型. https://www.jiqizhixin.com/articles/2018-12-25-22, Accessed 27 Jan 2022
Popović, M.: Error classification and analysis for machine translation quality assessment. In: Moorkens, J., Castilho, S., Gaspari, F., Doherty, S. (eds.) Translation Quality Assessment. MTTA, vol. 1, pp. 129–158. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91241-7_7
Zhao, H., Liu, Q.: Common error analysis of machine translation output (2016)
Hsu, J.: Error classification of machine translation a corpus-based study on Chinese-English patent translation. Stud. Interpretation Transl. 18, 121–136 (2014)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Lee, K.W., Qian, M. (2022). Misinformation in Machine Translation: Error Categories and Levels of Recognition Difficulty. In: Degen, H., Ntoa, S. (eds) Artificial Intelligence in HCI. HCII 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13336. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05643-7_34
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05643-7_34
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-05642-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-05643-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)