Cihan University-Erbil Scientific Journal a periodic multidisciplinary scientific journal issued by Cihan University- Erbil after auditing and revising by a specialized staff headed by the President of the university. The journal publishes original creative researches related to all fields of pure and applied sciences and humanities in Kurdish, Arabic and English.
Related Articles
Author:Fereydoon Rasouli
Translation Department, College of Arts and Letters, Cihan University-Erbil
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24086/cuesj.si.2018.n1a9
Abstract
In this study, it is attempted to make a comparison between two common methods of evaluation of machine translation (MT) output (Human and Automatic MT evaluation). Materials of the study have been selected from economical texts. Twenty English sentences and their Persian translation were selected from “translating of economic texts” book published by Payam-e-Nour University. To assess translated sentences humanly 20 Ma students of translation studies participated in this study as evaluators. In order to evaluate sentences automatically, BLEU method of Mt output evaluation was applied. According to the findings of the study both methods of evaluation lead to the same results, however , human evaluation method is more precious than automatic evaluation methods, at the same time automatic evaluation methods is faster and more time saving than human evaluation methods.
Keywords: Automatic Evaluation Methods, Human Evaluation Methods, Machine Translation.
References
Aal Attia, M.A. (2002) Implications of the Agreement Features in Machine Translation. Master Thesis, University of Al- Azhar , Cairo , Egypt.
Agarwal, A & Lavie , A . (2008). METEOR, MBLEU and M-TER: Evaluation Metric for High Correlation with Human Rankings of Machine Translation Output. In Proceedings of the Third ACL Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, Columbus, USA, Jun
Allen B. Tucher, (1987) “Current strategies in machine translation research and development”, in Sergei Nirenburg, ed., Machine Translation: Theoretical and methodological issues, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ALPAC. (1966). Language and machines: computers in translation and linguistics. A report by the Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee. Division of Behavioral Sciences, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences – National Research Council.
Arnold, D, at el. (1994) Machine Translation: An Introductory Guide. Manchester: Blackwell.
Arnold, D, Sadler, L. and Humphreys, R. L. (1993). Evaluation: An Assessment. Machine Translation. Vol. 8, Number 1-2. Special issue in Evaluation of MT
Arturo, T. (1999) Translation Engines: Techniques for Machine Translation. London: Springer
Babych, B at el. (2005). Estimating the predictive power of n-gram MT evaluation metrics across language and text types. In MT Summit X. Phuket, 13-15 September 2005.
Beeby, A.Rodriguez Ines, P. & Sanchez–Gijon, P. (Eds) (2009). Corpus Use and Translating, John Benjamin Publication Company
Callison-Burch, C at el. (2006). Re-evaluating the Role of Bleu in Machine Translation Research.
Carrol, J. B . (1966). An experiment in evaluating the quality of translation.National Academy of Sciences National Research Council Washington, D. C.
Chakaveh Saedi at el. (2009). Automatic Translation between English and Persian texts. CAASL-3 – Third Workshop on Computational Approaches to Arabic Script-based Languages [at] MT Summit XII, August 26, 2009, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Crook & Bishop (1979). Measurement of readability by the cloze test. In van Slype, G (1979). Critical Methods for Evaluating the Quality of Machine Translation. Prepared for European Commission. Report BR 19142.
Culy, C. and Riehemann, S. Z. (2003). The limits of n-gram translation evaluation metrics MT Summit IX, New Orleans, USA, 23-27 September 2003.
Systems
Trujillo, A (1999). Translation Engines: Techniques for Machine Translation, London: Springer.
Full Text
