Translation memory: Difference between revisions

Software programs that use translation memories are sometimes known as '''translation memory managers''' ('''TMM''') or '''translation memory systems''' ('''TM systems''', not to be confused with a [[Translationtranslation management system]] ('''TMS'''), which is another type of software focused on managing the process of translation).

Translation memories are typically used in conjunction with a dedicated [[computer -assisted translation]] (CAT) tool, [[wordprocessor|word processing]] program, [[terminology management systems]], multilingual dictionary, or even raw [[machine translation]] output.

Research indicates that many [[language industry|companies producing multilingual documentation]] are using translation memory systems. In a survey of language professionals in 2006, 82.5% out of 874 replies confirmed the use of a TM.<ref name="survey"/> Usage of TM correlated with text type characterised by technical terms and simple sentence structure (technical, to a lesser degree marketing and financial), computing skills, and repetitiveness of content.<ref name="survey">Elina Lagoudaki (2006), "Translation Memory systems: Enlightening users' perspective. Key finding of the TM Survey 2006 carried out during July and August 2006. (Imperial College London, Translation Memories Survey 2006), p.16 {{cite web |url=http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/portal/pls/portallive/docs/1/7307707.PDF |title=Archived copy |accessdateaccess-date=2007-03-25 |url-status=dead |archiveurlarchive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070325114619/http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/portal/pls/portallive/docs/1/7307707.PDF |archivedatearchive-date=2007-03-25 }}</ref>

== Using translation memoriesTMs ==

The program breaks the '''[[source text]]''' (the text to be translated) into segments, looks for matches between segments and the source half of previously translated source-target pairs stored in a '''translation memory''', and presents such matching pairs as translation full and partial '''candidatesmatches'''. The translator can accept a candidatematch, replace it with a fresh translation, or modify it to match the source. In the last two cases, the new or modified translation goes into the database.

Some translation memory systems search for 100% matches only, that is to say thati.e. they can only retrieve segments of text that match entries in the database exactly, while others employ [[Fuzzy string searching|fuzzy matching]] algorithms to retrieve similar segments, which are presented to the translator with differences flagged. It is important to note that typicalTypical translation memory systems only search for text in the source segment.

{{cite-more citations needed section|date=April 2018}}

The use of TM systems might have an effect on the quality of the texts translated. Its main effect is clearly related to the so-called "error propagation": if the translation for a particular segment is incorrect, it is in fact more likely that the incorrect translation will be reused the next time the same [[source text]], or a similar [[source text]], is translated, thereby perpetuating the error. Traditionally, two main effects on the quality of translated texts have been described: the "sentence-salad" effect (Bédard 2000; cited in O’HaganO'Hagan 2009: 50) and the "peep-hole" effect (Heyn 1998). The first refers to a lack of coherence at the text level when a text is translated using sentences from a TM which have been translated by different translators with different styles. According to the latter, translators may adapt their style to the use of TM system in order for these not to contain intratextual references, so that the segments can be better reused in future texts, thus affecting cohesion and readability (O'Hagan 2009).

Note that theseThese effects are closely related to training rather than inherent to the tool. According to Martín-Mor (2011), the use of TM systems does have an effect on the quality of the translated texts, especially on novices, but experienced translators are able to avoid it. Pym (2013) reminds that "translators using TM/MT tend to revise each segment as they go along, allowing little time for a final revision of the whole text at the end", which might in fact be the ultimate cause of some of the effects described here.

==Types of translation-memoryTM systems==

* Desktop: Desktop translation memory tools are typically what individual translators use to complete translations. They are programs that a freelance translator downloads and installs on his/hera desktop computer.

* Server-based or Centralisedcentralised: Centralized translation memory systems store TM on a central server. They work together with desktop TM and can increase TM match rates by 30–60% more than the TM leverage attained by desktop TM alone.

=== Off-lineOffline functions ===

1970s is the infancy stage for TM systems in which scholars carried on a preliminary round of exploratory discussions. The original idea for TM systems is often attributed{{according to whom|date=April 2018}} to Martin Kay's "Proper Place" paper ,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kay |first1=Martin |title=The Proper Place of Men and Machines in Language Translation |journal=Machine Translation |date=March 1997 |volume=12 |issue=1–2 |pages=3–23 |doi=10.1023/A:1007911416676 |s2cid=207627954 }}</ref>, but the details of it are not fully given. In this paper, it has shown the basic concept of the storing system: "The translator might start by issuing a command causing the system to display anything in the store that might be relevant to .... Before going on, he can examine past and future fragments of text that contain similar material". This observation from Kay was actually influenced by the suggestion of Peter Arthern that translators can use similar, already translated documents online. In his 1978 article <ref>{{cite journal|title=Machine Translation and Computerized Terminology Systems: A Translator's Perspective |last1=Arthern |first1=Peter |journal=Translating and the computerComputer: proceedingsProceedings of a seminarSeminar, London, 14th November, 1978 |date=1978 |url=http://www.mt-archive.info/Aslib-1978-Arthern.pdf |isbn=0444853022}}</ref> he gave fully demonstration of what we call TM systems today: Any new text would be typed into a word processing station, and as it was being typed, the system would check this text against the earlier texts stored in its memory, together with its translation into all the other official languages [of the European Community]. ... One advantage over machine translation proper would be that all the passages so retrieved would be grammatically correct. In effect, we should be operating an electronic 'cut and stick' process which would, according to my calculations, save at least 15 per cent of the time which translators now employ in effectively producing translations.

The idea was incorporated from ALPS (Automated Language Processing Systems) Tools first developed by researcher from Brigham Young University, and at that time the idea of TM systems was mixed with a tool callcalled "Repetitions Processing" which only aimed to find matched strings. Only after a long time, did the concept of so-called translation memory come into being.

The real exploratory stage of TM systems would be 1980s. One of the first implementationimplementations of TM system appeared in Sadler and Vendelmans' Bilingual Knowledge Bank. A Bilingual Knowledge Bank is a syntactically and referentially structured pair of corpora, one being a translation of the other, in which translation units are cross-coded between the corpora. The aim of Bilingual Knowledge Bank is to develop a corpus-based general-purpose knowledge source for applications in machine translation and computer-aided translation (Sadler & Vendelman, 1987). Another important step was made by Brian Harris with his "Bi-text". He has defined the bi-text as "a single text in two dimensions" (1988), the source and target texts related by the activity of the translator through translation units which made a similar echoes with Sadler's Bilingual Knowledge Bank. And in Harris's work he proposed something like TM system without using this name: a database of paired translations, searchable either by individual word, or by "whole translation unit", in the latter case the search being allowed to retrieve similar rather than identical units.

TM technology only became commercially available on a wide scale in the late 1990s, sothrough the efforts made by several engineers and translators. Of note is the first TM tool called Trados ([[Trados|SDL Trados]] nowadays). In this tool, when opening the source file and applying the translation memory so that any "100% matches" (identical matches) or "fuzzy matches" (similar, but not identical matches) within the text are instantly extracted and placed within the target file. Then, the "matches" suggested by the translation memory can be either accepted or overridden with new alternatives. If a translation unit is manually updated, then it is stored within the translation memory for future use as well as for repetition in the current text. In a similar way, all segments in the target file without a "match" would be translated manually and then automatically added to the translation memory.

'''[[XLIFF|XML Localisation Interchange File Format]]''' (XLIFF) is intended to provide a single interchange file format that can be understood by any localization provider. [[XLIFF]] is the preferred way<ref>{{Cite web|title=DITA Translation SC {{!}} OASIS|url=https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=dita-translation|access-date=2021-01-29|website=www.oasis-open.org}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|last=Roturier|first=Johann|title=XML neededfor translation technology|date=March2019-08-23|url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315311241/chapters/10.4324/9781315311258-3|work=The 2009Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology|pages=45–60|editor-last=O’Hagan|editor-first=Minako|edition=1|location=Abingdon, Oxon|publisher=Routledge|language=en|doi=10.4324/9781315311258-3|isbn=978-1-315-31125-8|s2cid=213287381|access-date=2021-01-29}}</ref> of exchanging data in XML format in the translation industry.<ref>[http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=xliff XML Localisation Interchange File Format]

The xml:tm (XML-based Text Memory) approach to translation memory is based on the concept of text memory which comprises author and translation memory.<ref>{{cite web|title=OAXAL—What is it and why should I care|url=http://www.infomanagementcenter.com/enewsletter/200808/second.htm|work=CIDM Information Management News|accessdateaccess-date=March 30, 2013|author=Andrzej Zydroń|date=August 2008|quote=At the core of xml:tm are the following concepts which together make up 'Text Memory': Author Memory and Translation Memory.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130517222230/http://www.infomanagementcenter.com/enewsletter/200808/second.htm|archive-date=May 17, 2013|url-status=dead|df=mdy-all}}</ref> xml:tm has been donated to Lisa OSCAR by XML-INTL.