Typing your mind away. Comparing keylogged tasks with the Task Segment Framework

One of the main process features under study in Cognitive Translation & Interpreting Studies (CTIS) is the chronological unfolding of the tasks. The analyses of time spans in translation have been conceived in two ways: (1) studying those falling between text units of different sizes: words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs; (2) setting arbitrary time span thresholds to explore where do they fall in the text, whether between text units or not. Writing disfluencies may lead to comprehensive insights into the cognitive activities involved in typing while translating. Indeed, long time spans are often taken as hints that cognitive resources have been subtracted from typing and devoted to other activities, such as planning, evaluating, etc. This exploratory, pilot study combined both approaches to seek potential general tendencies and contrasts in informants’ inferred mental processes when performing different writing tasks, through the analysis of their behaviors, as keylogged. The study tasks were retyping, monolingual free writing, translation, revision and a multimodal task—namely, monolingual text production based on an infographic leaflet. Task logs were chunked, and shorter time spans, including those within words, were analyzed following the Task Segment Framework (Muñoz & Apfelthaler, in press). Finally, time span analysis was combined with the analysis of the texts as to their lexical density, type-token ratio and word frequency. Several previous results were confirmed, and some others were surprising. Time spans in free writing were longer between paragraphs and sentences, possibly hinting at planning and, in translation, between clauses and words, suggesting more cognitive activities at these levels. On the other hand, the infographic was expected to facilitate the writing process, but most time spans were longer than in both free writing and translation. Results of the multimodal task and some other results suggest venues for further research.

Neural Machine Translation in the Field of Law. Analysis and Evaluation against Human Reference of NMT Raw Outputs of an Atto Costitutivo of S.r.l. from Italian into German.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is gaining ever more ground in every sphere of human life, to the point that it is now even used to pass sentences in courts. The use of AI in the field of Law is however deemed quite controversial, as it could provide more objectivity yet entail an abuse of power as well, given that bias in algorithms behind AI may cause lack of accuracy. As a product of AI, machine translation is being increasingly used in the field of Law too in order to translate laws, judgements, contracts, etc. between different languages and different legal systems. In the legal setting of Company Law, accuracy of the content and suitability of terminology play a crucial role within a translation task, as any addition or omission of content or mistranslation of terms could entail legal consequences for companies. The purpose of the present study is to first assess which neural machine translation system between DeepL and ModernMT produces a more suitable translation from Italian into German of the atto costitutivo of an Italian s.r.l. in terms of accuracy of the content and correctness of terminology, and then to assess which translation proves to be closer to a human reference translation. In order to achieve the above-mentioned aims, two human and automatic evaluations are carried out based on the MQM taxonomy and the BLEU metric. Results of both evaluations show an overall better performance delivered by ModernMT in terms of content accuracy, suitability of terminology, and closeness to a human translation. As emerged from the MQM-based evaluation, its accuracy and terminology errors account for just 8.43% (as opposed to DeepL’s 9.22%), while it obtains an overall BLEU score of 29.14 (against DeepL’s 27.02). The overall performances however show that machines still face barriers in overcoming semantic complexity, tackling polysemy, and choosing domain-specific terminology, which suggests that the discrepancy with human translation may still be remarkable.