Translation of Veterinary Texts: Post-Editing for Different Target Audiences Amid MT Limitations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1602.02Keywords:
MT, post-editing, Merck Veterinary Manual, Google TranslateAbstract
This research fundamentally examines how machine-generated translations of veterinary texts might be post-edited. Given the specialized terminology and knowledge required in veterinary texts, their translations must be conducted by an expert translator with a background in translations of veterinary texts or medical science. Proficiency in translation technologies is also essential for an effective post-editing process. Predictably, the primary audience for veterinary texts consists mainly of professionals in veterinary medicine, including academics and veterinarians. Nevertheless, additional target groups, including an intermediate readership, i.e. veterinary students, pet owners or even farmers without veterinary expertise (laymen), still seek information for specific circumstances. In this study, a specialized text from the Merck Veterinary Manual or MCV (Abdul-Aziz et al., 2016) was randomly selected, and the raw translation output was generated using Google Translate. Analysis revealed that Google Translate's initial translations were done in a sophisticated language, primarily targeting professionals. Based on this finding, it can be said that despite utilizing neural MT systems, Google Translate may tend to overlook the potential variability of other target audiences or groups. Therefore, unlike a human translator, who likely possesses contextual knowledge in advance, Google Translate might fail to adapt translations for distinct audience groups. The fact that the raw outputs of the MCV from Google Translate adhere to a semantic or literary translation, primarily targeting professionals, suggests that light post-editing may suffice for this audience most of the time because they possess prior knowledge or experience in veterinary medicine. In contrast, non-experts may require full post-editing to thoroughly comprehend the text.
References
Abdul-Aziz, T. et al. (2016). The Merck veterinary manual (Eleventh Edition) (ed. Susan E. Aiello et al.). Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ. https://blog.research.google/2020/06/recent-advances-in-google-translate.html Accession Date: 30.12.2023. https://www.britannica.com/science/veterinary-medicine Accession Date: 05.01.2024.
Bywood, L., Georgakopoulou, P. & Etchegoyhen, T. (2017). Embracing the threat: MT as a solution for subtitling. Perspectives, 25(3), 492–50.
Drăcșineanu, C. (2019). Challenges in medical translation. Romanian journal of medical and dental education, 8(12), 24-29.
Esselink, B. (2003). The Evolution of localization. The Guide from multilingual computing & technology: Localization, https://multilingual.com/downloads/screenSupp57.pdf, 4-7. Accession Date:17.10.2024
Hatim, B. & Munday, J. (2004). Translation, an advanced resource book. Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group), London and New York.
Hutchins, J. (2001). MT and human translation in competition or in complementation?. International journal of translation, 13(1-2), 5- 20. https://vetrehberi.com/koyunlarda-babesiosis-agrimasi-piroplasmosis/ Accession Date: 04.01.2024.
Jimenez-Crespo, Miguel A. (2013). Translation and web localization. Routledge, London and New York.
León, F. C., Díez, G., Ferri, F. R., León Vizcaíno, L., Gijón, F.J, Gimeno, E.J., Cein, C.Z., Rodríguez, J.M.S.V., Madrigal, J.J.C., Cantos Gómez, P., Schudel, A. (2015). The translation into Spanish of the OIE Manual of diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals (mammals, birds and bees): problems, solutions and conclusions. Rev sci tech, 24(3), 1095-104.
Moneus, A.M. & Sahari, Y. (2024). Artificial intelligence and human translation: a contrastive study based on legal texts. Heliyon 10(2024), 1-14.
Munday, J, Pinto, S. R. & Blakesley, J. (2022). Introducing translation studies: theories and applications (5th Edition). Routledge, London, and New York.
Newmark, P. (1979). A layman’s view of medical translation. British medical journal, 2(6202), 1405–1407.
Noriega-Santiáñez, L. & Corpas Pastor G. (2023). Machine vs human translation of formal neologisms in literature: exploring e-tools and creativity in students. Revista tradumàtica. tecnologies de la traducció, 21, 233-264.
Odacıoğlu, M. C. (2017). Çeviribilimde yerelleştirme paradigmasına doğru [Towards a Localization Paradigm]. Gece Kitaplığı, Ankara.
Reiss, K. & Vermeer, Hans J. (1984, 2013), Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie [Towards a general theory of translation: Skopos theories explained] (translated by Christiane Nord). Routledge, London and New York.
Romero, A. (2013). Veterinary translation: an undiscovered speciality in the health sciences. Panacea-boletin de medicina y traduccion, 14(37), 56-65.
Schulz, S., Bernhardt-Melischnig, J., Kreuzthaler, M., Daumke, P., Boeker, M. (2013). Machine vs. human translation of SNOMED CT terms. Med info, 581-584.
Sokolova, N.V. (2021). Machine vs human translation in the synergetic translation space. Science journal of volsU. Linguistics, 20(6), 89-98.
Tosun, M. (2002). Dil edincini aşan bir edim olarak çeviri eylemi: Çeviri kuramlarının gelişiminde paradigma değişimi [English: Translation action as a performance that transcends language acquisition: A paradigm shift in the development of translation theories] (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Institute of Social Sciences, Sakarya University.
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam and Philadelphia.
Venuti, L. (1994). Translator’s invisibility: a history of translation. Routledge, London and New York.
