If you have had a chance to read my previous post “Hand-crafted or Industrial… Really a Dilemma?“, then you are familiar with my opinion on the coexistence of both types of translations.
It is time now to discuss the thorny issue of machine translations (MT) and post-editing. In my opinion this version is more suitable for “industrial” translation while I think “hand-crafted” translations should be based on a “manual” work, only aided by the use of traditional tools for help represented by translation memories and terminology databases.
Denying the advances being made in MT in our industry is to deny simple truths about the present and future.
Several crises with different causes have led companies in the various industrial sectors to assimilate the concept of the age of discontinuity, as opposed to the peace that characterized how they had been sailing in calm waters. This concept was put forward by the business management guru Peter Drucker at the end of the ’60s, in his book of the same title. Drucker himself lived long enough to propose a change of course, a 180 º compared to his ideas in the ’40s, offering openness and flexibility to embrace change and open minds to new alternatives.
From another perspective, either we accept the concept of Schumpeterian creative destruction, or we risk falling behind, to the point off falling off the map .
So I see the need to accept this new alternative. I wonder: if we have already accepted the “intrusion” of an application that imposed the concept of segmentation of a text, a situation that clearly favors literal translation … Why should we not accept MT?
Many argue that it is a step towards the abyss; I, however, propose to give the benefit of the doubt, to use this technique when working with industrial translations.