With the advent of the neural paradigm, machine translation has made another leap in quality. As a result, its use by trainee translators has increased considerably, which cannot be disregarded in translation pedagogy. However, since legal texts have features that pose major challenges to machine translation, the question arises as to what extent machine translation is now capable of translating legal texts or at least certain types of legal text into another legal language well enough so that the post-editing effort is limited, and, consequently, whether a targeted use in translation pedagogy can be considered. In order to answer this question, DeepL Translator, a machine translation system, and MateCat, a CAT system that integrates machine translation, were tested. The test, undertaken at different times and without specific translation memories, provided for the translation of several legal texts of different types utilising both systems, and was followed by systematisation of errors and evaluation of translation results. The evaluation was carried out according to the following criteria: 1) comprehensibility and meaningfulness of the target text; and 2) correspondence between source and target text in consideration of the specific translation situation. Overall, the results are considered insufficient to give post-editing of machine-translated legal texts a bigger place in translation pedagogy. As the evaluation of the correspondence between source and target text was fundamentally worse than with regard to the meaningfulness of the target text, translation pedagogy should respond by raising awareness about differences between machine translation output and human translation in this field, and by improving translation approach and strengthening legal expertise.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
Burchardt Aljoscha et al. 2014. Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) Definition. http://www.qt21.eu/mqm-definition/definition-2014-08-14.html (accessed May 7 2019).
Burchardt Aljoscha and Jörg Porsiel. 2017. Vorwort: Was kann die maschinelle Übersetzung und was nicht? In Maschinelle Übersetzung. Grundlagen für den professionellen Einsatz ed. Jörg Porsiel 11–8. Berlin: BDÜ-Fachverlag.
Castilho Sheila et al. 2017. Is Neural Machine Translation the New State of the Art? The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 108: 109–20.
Forcada Mikel L. 2017. Making sense of neural machine translation. Translation Spaces 6/2: 291–309.
Hansen-Schirra Silvia et al. 2017. Post-Editing: Strategien Qualität Effizienz. In Maschinelle Übersetzung. Grundlagen für den professionellen Einsatz ed. Jörg Porsiel 176–91. Berlin: BDÜ-Fachverlag.
Heiss Christine and Marcello Soffritti. 2018. DeepL Traduttore e didattica della traduzione dall’italiano in tedesco. Alcune valutazioni preliminari. InTRAlinea. Special Issue: Translation and Interpreting for Language Learners (TAIL).http://www.intralinea.org/specials/article/2294 (accessed September 13 2019).
Hutchins W. John. 1995. Machine Translation: A Brief History In Concise History of the Language Sciences: from the Sumerians to the Cognitivists eds. Ernst F. K. Koerner and R.E. Asher 431–45. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Killman Jeffrey. 2014. Vocabulary Accuracy of Statistical Machine Translation in the Legal Context. In Third Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice eds. Sharon O’Brian Michel Simard and Lucia Specia 85–98. www.amtaweb.org/AMTA2014Proceedings/AMTA2014Proceedings_PEWorkshop_final.pdf (accessed May 7 2019).
Koehn Philipp. 2010. Statistical Machine Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kyburz Kevin. 2018. Schlägt sogar Google. Die Übersetzungsmaschine DeepL. https://techgarage.blog/schlaegt-sogar-google-dieuebersetzungsmaschine-deepl/ (accessed February 28 2019).
Matthiesen Aaron J. 2017. Maschinelle Übersetzung im Wandel. Die Auswirkungen von künstlicher Intelligenz auf maschinelle Übersetzungssysteme. Mit einer vergleichenden Untersuchung von Google Translate und Microsoft Translator. Berlin: epubli.
Prieto Ramos Fernando. 2015. Quality Assurance in Legal Translation: Evaluating Process Competence and Product in the Pursuit of Adequacy. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 28/1: 11–30.
Şahin Mehmet and Nilgün Dungan. 2014. Translation testing and evaluation: A study on methods and needs. Translation & Interpreting 6/2: 67–90.
Van Brussel Laura et al. 2018. A Fine-grained Error Analysis of NMT PBMT and RBMT Output for English-to-Dutch. In Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation 3799–804. https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8561558 (accessed May 8 2019)
Wallberg Ilona. 2017. DIN EN ISO 18587 – eine Norm über den Prozess des Posteditierens. In Maschinelle Übersetzung. Grundlagen für den professionellen Einsatz ed. Jörg Porsiel 160–7. Berlin: BDÜ-Fachverlag.
Werthmann Antonia and Andrea Witt. 2014. Maschinelle Übersetung – Gegenwart und Perspektiven. In Translation and Interpretation in Europe. Contributions to the Annual Conference 2013 of EFNIL in Vilnius ed. Gerhard Stickel 79–103. Frankfurt et al.: Lang.
Yates Sarah. 2006. Scaling the Tower of Babel Fish: An Analysis of the Machine Translation of Legal Information. Law Library Journal 98/3: 481–500.