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.

Video registrazione con valore legale su iPhone: Legal Rec

Video Registrazione Valore Legale:LegalRec

Estrazione terminologica automatica: sistemi a confronto

In any terminological study, candidate term extraction is a very time-consuming task. Corpus analysis tools have automatized some processes allowing the detection of relevant data within the texts, facilitating term candidate selection as well. Nevertheless, these tools are (normally) not specific for terminology research; therefore, the units which are automatically extracted need manual evaluation. Over the last few years some software products have been specifically developed for automatic term extraction. They are based on corpus analysis, but use linguistic and statistical information to filter data more precisely. As a result, the time needed for manual evaluation is reduced. In this framework, we tried to understand if and how these new tools can really be an advantage. In order to develop our project, we simulated a terminology study: we chose a domain (i.e. legal framework for medicinal products for human use) and compiled a corpus from which we extracted terms and phraseologisms using AntConc, a corpus analysis tool. Afterwards, we compared our list with the lists extracted automatically from three different tools (TermoStat Web, TaaS e Sketch Engine) in order to evaluate their performance. In the first chapter we describe some principles relating to terminology and phraseology in language for special purposes and show the advantages offered by corpus linguistics. In the second chapter we illustrate some of the main concepts of the domain selected, as well as some of the main features of legal texts. In the third chapter we describe automatic term extraction and the main criteria to evaluate it; moreover, we introduce the term-extraction tools used for this project. In the fourth chapter we describe our research method and, in the fifth chapter, we show our results and draw some preliminary conclusions on the performance and usefulness of term-extraction tools.