This year thus far appears to be the year, in some quarters, of getting mighty indignant about the evils of post-editing machine translation (PEMT).<\/p>\n
Might as well stick my oar in. It\u2019s been a while.<\/p>\n
There seem to be two basic angles of attack employed by those getting their knickers in a twist about PEMT.<\/p>\n
First, the financial aspect. PEMT is evil because it\u2019s poorly paid, both absolutely and relatively. Absolutely, because the per-word (or hourly, as the case may be) rate offered is rarely generous. Relatively, because as we know, review\/editing is always a fraction (say a quarter or thereabouts) of the overall cost of a translation, and with the first draft of that translation now done free of charge by a computer, you\u2019ll find yourself being offered a fraction of the money (say a quarter or thereabouts) to produce any given translation job.<\/p>\n
But that doesn\u2019t make PEMT evil per se<\/em>. It just means the adopters of the PEMT model are the kind of operators who compete more or less solely on price and endeavour to exploit their suppliers to screw them for all they can get out of them. There does seem to be a correlation between those offering PEMT work and those offering somewhat less than generous rates for conventional translation, but if you\u2019re looking for a fair day\u2019s pay for a fair day\u2019s work, these outfits are surely best avoided, full stop.<\/p>\n Consider this. If you were offered \u20ac1 per word for PEMT, would you do it? If you would (and I would), then the argument merely becomes one of rate negotiation or market segmentation, or possibly both, and not one of PEMT being evil in itself because the remuneration offered is rotten.<\/p>\n Second, at least a couple of anti-PEMT pieces I\u2019ve seen have attempted to compare the usual human translation process against PEMT in order to reach the conclusion that the use of MT followed by PEMT is a more time-consuming way to reach an acceptable target text. There may be some truth in that, but it is not a phenomenon restricted to PEMT alone. If we take such procedures or workflows and insert \u201cassign translation to incompetent arse\u201d in the place of \u201crun text through MT\u201d, we get exactly the same long-winded process. Any process where the first translation is barely comprehensible crud will have the same result. This is not an exclusively PEMT problem.<\/p>\n I have seen a third angle, usually presented more calmly for some reason although it is arguably the most bonkers, namely the idea that PEMT somehow harms the translator\u2019s faculties and adversely affects their subsequent translation output. I\u2019m not sure what to make of such claims, other than to suggest that if you find this happening to you, then it\u2019s probably a good reason not to forge a career in PEMT. On no scientific grounds whatsoever, I find it hard to believe such an effect would be produced in everyone (see, I can talk bollocks as well as the next man), therefore I would not seek to deny everyone<\/em> the chance to forge a career in PEMT, not for this reason. So it pays poorly, takes ages and turns your brain to rice pudding. Nonetheless, it is almost certainly here to stay. MT is a permanent feature on the landscape now. Unless its output improves markedly, it will always need editing, when used for purposes other than gisting. <\/p>\n I would therefore suggest that the job of MT post-editor is likely to grow, more PEMT work is likely to be on offer, eventually perhaps by some otherwise respectable operators; it would therefore be more sensible to accept it and strive to ensure it is properly remunerated for the time and skill it takes. Rather, than, say, post metaphorically spit-speckled rants twice a quarter about how evil it is. Wouldn’t it?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This year thus far appears to be the year, in some quarters, of getting mighty indignant about the evils of post-editing machine translation (PEMT). Might as well stick my oar in. It\u2019s been a while. There seem to be two … Continue reading
\n(If you do <\/em>find your own output seriously <\/em>affected by your environment, then I hope you are careful about the company you keep, where you live, the books you read, and so on.)<\/p>\n