| Pages in topic: [1 2 3 4] > | Poll: Do you think CAT tools improve the quality of translations? Thread poster: ProZ.com Staff
|
|---|
| | | Certainly not | Feb 4, 2011 |
My preferred answer, "No, certainly not", was not among the options. I can't imagine why.
Admittedly, my experience of these tools is very limited, but, although I can see how they would be a valuable tool for the translator in certain types of text and could cut down the time required for a given job, I find it hard to imagine how they could improve the quality of a final translation. Rather the reverse, as the auto completion of items is likely to encourage lazine... See more My preferred answer, "No, certainly not", was not among the options. I can't imagine why.
Admittedly, my experience of these tools is very limited, but, although I can see how they would be a valuable tool for the translator in certain types of text and could cut down the time required for a given job, I find it hard to imagine how they could improve the quality of a final translation. Rather the reverse, as the auto completion of items is likely to encourage laziness and carelessness in those who have such tendencies (though not in the esteemed contributors to ProZ.com, I must stress at this point).
So, to summarise, I think CAT tools can improve the quantity of a translator's output, but not the quality. Would anyone care to try and persuade me otherwise? ▲ Collapse
| | | | Thayenga 
Germany
Local time: 17:21
Member (2009)
English to German
+ ...
| Certainly not | Feb 4, 2011 |
Philip Lees wrote:
So, to summarise, I think CAT tools can improve the quantity of a translator's output, but not the quality. Would anyone care to try and persuade me otherwise?
There is nothing better than an excellent- human! - translator.
CAT tools will increase a translator's output, however, only in specific fields; literary and poetry will most probably never be efficiently translated with the help of CAT tools.
| | | | Interlangue (X)
Angola
Local time: 17:21
English to French
+ ...
| You both take the words out of my fingers... | Feb 4, 2011 |
Thayenga wrote: Philip Lees wrote:
So, to summarise, I think CAT tools can improve the quantity of a translator's output, but not the quality. Would anyone care to try and persuade me otherwise? There is nothing better than an excellent- human! - translator.
| | |
|
|
|
Claire Cox
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:21
French to English
+ ...
| Yes - in the right hands! | Feb 4, 2011 |
I think the other answerers are missing the point. CAT tools are precisely that: computer-assisted translation, NOT machine translation, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Good translation memory tools act as a back-up for a good translator, improving consistency (now how did I translate that last time?) and aiding glossary recognition. It's also unlikely that you'll miss a sentence out when you work segment by segment. Of course, they can be abused and if you don't know what you're ... See more I think the other answerers are missing the point. CAT tools are precisely that: computer-assisted translation, NOT machine translation, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Good translation memory tools act as a back-up for a good translator, improving consistency (now how did I translate that last time?) and aiding glossary recognition. It's also unlikely that you'll miss a sentence out when you work segment by segment. Of course, they can be abused and if you don't know what you're doing in the first place, then a CAT tool isn't necessarily going to help. Used effectively, they can be a considerable boon to translators, increasing productivity and providing a better quality end result. I too used to be a doubter, but since investing in Wordfast some four years ago, I am now a convert! I agree that literary translations probably don't lend themselves to use with TMs, but even if you don't regard the work you do as particularly repetitive, you'll be amazed how many similarities there are and how often similar terms crop up. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Vibeke Degn-P
Norway
Local time: 17:21
Member (2010)
English to Norwegian
+ ...
| Yes, it can improve quality | Feb 4, 2011 |
Philip Lees wrote:
So, to summarise, I think CAT tools can improve the quantity of a translator's output, but not the quality. Would anyone care to try and persuade me otherwise?
A challenge! Love it.
I am right now working on translating nine cook books for a major norwegian publishing house. It is a job I love, even though the size of the project it rather overwhelming.
The most boring part of that is constantly having to type the proper translation of "a large handful of coriander, finely shredded" or "1 clove of garlic, mashed" (right now I'm working on the asian cook book, as you can see¨...) By entering the text to Trados, so much boring typing is taken out of my work day. I don't have to type the same sentences, 100 % matched, over and over and over again.
So, does that increase quality? Oh, yes! How?
Translation is my main business. I have yet to introduce myself as a typist. But ok, so far this has only improved quantity. How about quality?
Time saved is time I can put to better use. Since I don't have to retype "a large handful of ..." etc over and over again, I can spend more time on the demanding parts of my translation. And that, I think, show that a CAT tool can improve the quality of a translation.
Extra bonus: Less typing is less stressful to fingers, arms and shoulders, and, not to forget, the happy energy at the end of the day, when the project stats tells me how many perfect matches there are. (All those words I just have to confirm, not type, letter by letter).
Have a lovely day!
Vibeke
[Edited at 2011-02-04 09:02 GMT]
| | | | | Not only the bright side | Feb 4, 2011 |
Claire Cox wrote:
I think the other answerers are missing the point. CAT tools are precisely that: computer-assisted translation, NOT machine translation, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Good translation memory tools act as a back-up for a good translator, improving consistency (now how did I translate that last time?) and aiding glossary recognition. It's also unlikely that you'll miss a sentence out when you work segment by segment. Of course, they can be abused and if you don't know what you're doing in the first place, then a CAT tool isn't necessarily going to help. Used effectively, they can be a considerable boon to translators, increasing productivity and providing a better quality end result. I too used to be a doubter, but since investing in Wordfast some four years ago, I am now a convert! I agree that literary translations probably don't lend themselves to use with TMs, but even if you don't regard the work you do as particularly repetitive, you'll be amazed how many similarities there are and how often similar terms crop up.
Like Claire pointed out, CAT tools are only computer-assisted translation and not machine translation. The bright side may be that they speed up your work, yes. However, she forgets to point out that if the translation memory is messed up, you end up either fixing the whole TM, or go on translating the text with the messed up memory, which most of the time happens when a project is a large and on-going one, where several translators share(d) the same TM, and consistencies of terminologies and style cannot be maintained. And last of all but not the least, the silly discount rates imposed by agencies.
| | | |
I wanted to vote not necessarily, and I agree with those who voted no and expressed their opinion before me. In my case, when the text has a lot of technical terms, sometimes an element is denoted by 4 words, well it is of great help for the consistency.
But this is my case. In other fields, they are absolutely useless.
| | |
|
|
|
Websyster (X)
Local time: 17:21
Danish to English
+ ...
| CAT is quite invaluable for technical translations | Feb 4, 2011 |
After recently taking up full-time technical translation again after some years away from it, I discovered the joys of CAT - more specifically Wordfast.
No, it doesn't replace the human factor - my brain is still required to work - and CAT probably doesn't do much good in fiction, poetry and similar.
But for lengthy technical manuals it's a real find. Let me give you an example: For many of the terms I tra... See more After recently taking up full-time technical translation again after some years away from it, I discovered the joys of CAT - more specifically Wordfast.
No, it doesn't replace the human factor - my brain is still required to work - and CAT probably doesn't do much good in fiction, poetry and similar.
But for lengthy technical manuals it's a real find. Let me give you an example: For many of the terms I translate, I change my mind about the target term when I see the source term in another context. Before I had CAT, I needed to keep track of the terms and their location (or perform time-consuming searches) in order to go back and change them. But often you don't realize that you want to be able to go back before you meet the term a second time.
The quality boost arises when CAT helps you find ALL the instances of such a term and change them. It's not just a timesaver - you cannot possibly record and keep track of all the terms you might want to change later on. At least not when you're working with huge technical manuals consisting of many separate documents (which is how the customer wants them to stay...)
So for this type of work: Yes, CAT improves the quality of translations! ▲ Collapse
| | | | inkweaver
Germany
Local time: 17:21
French to German
+ ...
| To a certain extent, but not necessarily | Feb 4, 2011 |
If used by a bad translator, the result will be just that... bad, no matter if a CAT tool is used or not.
Quality can be improved to a certain extent, since consistency can easily be assured even after years (some projects are long-term projects or require periodic updates).
I also find proofreading me own translations so much easier if I have source and target segments side by side. Overtyping can be dangerous and constantly switching between ST and TT on a split scre... See more If used by a bad translator, the result will be just that... bad, no matter if a CAT tool is used or not.
Quality can be improved to a certain extent, since consistency can easily be assured even after years (some projects are long-term projects or require periodic updates).
I also find proofreading me own translations so much easier if I have source and target segments side by side. Overtyping can be dangerous and constantly switching between ST and TT on a split screen is rather tedious. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Claire Cox
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:21
French to English
+ ...
Yasutomo Kanazawa wrote:
The bright side may be that they speed up your work, yes. However, she forgets to point out that if the translation memory is messed up, you end up either fixing the whole TM, or go on translating the text with the messed up memory, which most of the time happens when a project is a large and on-going one, where several translators share(d) the same TM, and consistencies of terminologies and style cannot be maintained. And last of all but not the least, the silly discount rates imposed by agencies.
I don't recall mentioning speeding up the translating process as such. I did stress that TMs improve the quality of a good translator. I personally only use my own TMs so I can maintain consistent quality. I agree that where TMs are not good in the first place or are shared amongst inexperienced translators, then problems can come about. As I said, in the right hands, CAT tools can and do improve quality.
[Edited at 2011-02-04 09:14 GMT]
| | | | Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 08:21
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | They may improve overall quality but certainly not your writing skills | Feb 4, 2011 |
It is true, you can achieve consistency in regard to terminology and such, but CAT tools most definitely don't make you a better writer. Quite the contrary, the usage of such tools can lead to stiff and repetitive texts without verve and flow. A CAT tool is only as good as its user, and a CAT tool will never turn you into a better translator.
I don't think that the previous posters mixed up CAT tools with machine translation, BTW.
| | |
|
|
|
Tatty
Local time: 17:21
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Mangled sentences | Feb 4, 2011 |
My predominant combination is Spanish to English. The hallmark of Spanish is mangled sentences, at least for Spanish from Spain. Since a CAT tool allows you to maintain your own termbases you don't have to research terms again. However, I would still tend to run the usual checks on them as they don't always appear in the same context. This is the upside. The downside for me is that when I finish a translation I think that it is pretty much done but then I remove the source text only to find that... See more My predominant combination is Spanish to English. The hallmark of Spanish is mangled sentences, at least for Spanish from Spain. Since a CAT tool allows you to maintain your own termbases you don't have to research terms again. However, I would still tend to run the usual checks on them as they don't always appear in the same context. This is the upside. The downside for me is that when I finish a translation I think that it is pretty much done but then I remove the source text only to find that my sentences are only a little bit less mangled than the source sentences. Now my time management has gone down the tubes. I would agree with the person who said that CAT tools encourage lazy translating.
Yet this doesn't happen with some text. Simple contracts for example and technical texts, usually manuals.
Then there can be problems with the tool itself. I had quite a few problems with the last version of Trados and have developed a bit of a phobia. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Still not convinced | Feb 4, 2011 |
Nicole Schnell wrote:
I don't think that the previous posters mixed up CAT tools with machine translation, BTW.
No, I didn't.
So far, I've been persuaded that, apart from saving time, CAT tools can ensure the consistency of vocabulary in a translation. Whether that constitutes an improvement depends on how conscientious the non-CAT-using translator is (i.e. the basis for comparison), and whether absolute consistency is desirable in a given text, as opposed to making it stilted and repetitive.
This jury member is still out.
| | | | Adnan Özdemir
Türkiye
Local time: 18:21
Member (2007)
German to Turkish
+ ...
| Can a CAT tool...? | Feb 4, 2011 |
Can a CAT tool write a novel or translate it into Turkish? Improving the novel quality?
On tech. texts i use it... OK.
Is it easy to translate a juridical text via CAT-tool into Turkish?
CAT-Tool is not a miracle. It helps (some yes, some no, some maybe). imho.
Saludos desde Anatolia
Anadolu'dan selamlar
| | | | | Pages in topic: [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Poll: Do you think CAT tools improve the quality of translations? | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
