Cover not available
Part of
Handbook of Translation Studies: Volume 5
Edited by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer
[Handbook of Translation Studies 5] 2021
► pp. 177–183

Post-editing

 | Dublin City University
Article outline
  • 1.Historical context
  • 2.Issues and debates
    • 2.1Productivity
    • 2.2Quality and cost
    • 2.3Training
    • 2.4Tools
  • 3.Future outlook
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 16 September 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.5.pos3
References (14)
References
Doherty, Stephen. 2016. “The Impact of Translation Technologies on the Process and Product of Translation.” International Journal of Communication 10 (2016): 947–969.Google Scholar
Forcada, Mikel. 2017. “Making Sense of Neural Machine Translation.” Translation Spaces 6 (2): 291–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaspari, Federico, Antonio Toral, Sudip Kumar Naskar, Declan Groves, and Andy Way. 2014. “Perception vs. Reality: Measuring Machine Translation Post-Editing Productivity.” In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas: Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice (WPTP3), ed. by Sharon O’Brien, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia, 60–72. Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Guerberof Arenas, Ana. 2009. “Productivity and Quality in MT Post-Editing.” In XII MT Summit Workshop: Beyond Translation Memories, 26–30 Aug 2009, Ottawa, Canada. Available online at: [URL] (last checked on 27/03/2020).Google Scholar
. 2014. “Correlations between Productivity and Quality when Post-Editing in a Professional Context.” Machine Translation 28: 165–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koponen, Maarit. 2016. “Is Machine Translation Post-Editing Worth the Effort? A Survey of Research into Post-Editing and Effort.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 25: 131–148.Google Scholar
Mossop, Brian. 2011. “Revision.” In: Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol. 2, ed. by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 135–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, Daniel and Olivier Blanchard. 2019. Human/Machine: The Future of our Partnership with Machines. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon. 2012. “Translation as Human-Computer Interaction.” Translation Spaces 1:101–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon and Silvia Rodríguez Vázquez. 2019. “Translation and Technology”. In Routledge Handbook of Translation and Education, ed. by Sara Laviosa and Maria González-Davies, 264–277. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plitt, Mirko and François Masselot. 2010. “A Productivity Test of Statistical Machine Translation Postediting in a Typical Localisation Context.” Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 93: 7–16, 2010. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
TAUS (Online). “MT Post-Editing Guidelines.” [URL].
Vasconcellos, Muriel. 1985. “Management of the Machine Translation Environment: Interaction of Functions at the Pan American Health Organization.” In Tools for the Trade, ed. by Veronica Lawson. Translating and the Computer 5, 115–129. London: Aslib.Google Scholar
Wagner, Elizabeth. 1985. “Rapid Post-Editing of Systran.” In Tools for the Trade, ed. by Veronica Lawson. Translating and the Computer 5, 199–213. London: Aslib.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Zhang, Qi, Caitríona Osborne & Joss Moorkens
2024. MT error detection and correction by Chinese language learners. Translation and Interpreting Studies 19:2 ► pp. 277 ff. DOI logo
Rico, Celia
2022. Mind the gap. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 68:5 ► pp. 697 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.