Does Machine Translation have a role in language learning?

1. Does Machine Translation have a role in language learning? Harold Somers Centre for Computational Linguistics UMIST, Manchester

2. Outline • MT: state of the art • Language learners – trainee translators? • Previous suggestions for MT as CALL • Some suggestions/open questions • Using MT as a bad model • The place of translation in language teaching – can MT play a part? • Final thoughts – a bit disorganised: what do you think?

3. 1. MT: the state of the art • 50+ years old: the original application of “language engineering” • FAHQT not achieved … • … and no longer sought • Stability and maturity with users who (mostly) understand its pros and cons • Available for ~12 major languages, often free (WWW)

4. 1. MT: the state of the art • Experts stress the distinction between translation for assimilation and translation for dissemination • MT adequate for former • Text must be highly constrained for latter • Why? • Linguistic knowledge can be quite sophisticated • But Bar Hillel’s “semantic barrier” (1959) still there: real world knowledge, common sense reasoning, “understanding”

5. 1. MT: the state of the art • Most MT systems translate rather literally • “structure preserving” if not word-for-word • Therefore most CALL uses of MT exploit MT’s weaknesses rather than its strengths

6. 2. Language learners as trainee translators • To what extent is translation a legitimate activity for language learners? • As an exercise? • As a vocational activity? • We will return to this question • Inasmuch as language learners may become translators, they should be made aware of translation technology in all its forms • But this is not what I understand as “CALL”

7. 3. Previous studies • Loffler-Laurian (1983, 1985, 1987) • rather general comments • need for trainee translators to be aware of technological advances • role of post-editing and revision • question of style and “l’adaptation du style aux besoins spécifiques de la communication” • MT output can be useful in reconsidering the traditional notions of “mistake” and “error”.

8. Corness (1985, 1988) • uses ALPS’s interactive MT system with advanced learners of German • “interactive translation” mode: user chooses among alternative interpretations of an ambiguous phrase • e.g. a big computer user • heightening awareness of varieties of possible translation due to differences in interpretation, or stylistic difference

9. MT as a bad model • Typical view in 1980s: • “As language learning aids they are woefully inadequate, but … might provide a teacher with an interesting peg on which to hang a discussion of grammar, asking the students to spot the machine’s howlers and account for them.” (Higgins and Johns, 1984) • “… withholding the source text and inviting the student to reconstruct it from the raw translation. … This can be quite useful for drawing attention to half-forgotten points of grammar and usage.” (Ball, 1989)

10. Anderson (1995) • bidirectional English–Hebrew MT system • Students manually enter sentences one by one from a corpus provided to them, note results, and then use native-speaker intuition and/or L2 reference works (depending on the translation direction) to identify and correct the errors • If into L1, can reinforce students’ awareness of differences between the languages by showing them a bad translation into their own language

11. “Doing it backwards” (Richmond 1994) • But if into L2, danger of showing learners examples of bad L2 • Overcome by providing a model translation • Students asked to type in L1 sentence, note that system gets it wrong. • Modify the L1 sentence until appropriate target text is obtained. • In order to get desired output, L1 text has to be modified to make it more like the L2 target text! • “This is, of course, the reverse of normal student behaviour, which so often consists of producing incorrect French that sounds like English.” • No danger of reinforcing L2 errors, nor of introducing L1 errors • “… by increasing the students’ awareness of the differen[c]es between their first language and the target-language, the backwards translation method places the emphasis on linguistic processes and linguistic input rather than on linguistic forms and output.”

12. Pre-editing (Shei 2002) • both L1 and L2 text, either the student’s own, or a given (native speaker’s) text • Chinese-English • L1 pre-editing encourages students to “reflect[…] on their knowledge in the target language” • Editing native quality L2 to coerce a better translation is controversial approach. Mixed reactions: some say it only reveals how translating is not a good way to learn L2, or how poor student’s L2 grammatical competence was

13. Evaluation (Belam 2002) • compare alternative translations both human and MT systems • focus on question of wider context in which translations are done • question of exposing students to L2 texts of varying quality • assumes they are competent to give a relative judgment about L2 translation quality

14. Post-editing (Niño 2003) • Work in progress • Post-editing (revising) L2 MT output to develop L2 writing skills • Advanced students

15. Previous studies: summary • Focus on translation • MT as a bad model • Danger of exposure to bad L2 • (Mainly) advanced students • Heightens awareness of contrastive aspects

16. 4. Some suggestions • Using MT as a bad model • Agree that showing ill-formed L2 may be counterproductive • Useful to link “bad model” activity with understanding of how MT works • Which in turn can focus attention on how languages differ

17. Example (1) On a donné le livre à Paul. On a dormi dans ce lit. One gave the book to Paul. One slept in this bed. Paul was given the book. The bed was slept in.

18. Example (2) My cousin is handsome. My cousin is beautiful. My cousin is a rich woman. Mon cousin est beau. Ma cousine est belle. Ma cousine est riche. My cousin is beautiful. My cousin is beautiful. My cousin is rich.

19. Translation in language teaching • Classical “Grammar–Translation” method – much derided • But mainly for • Dullness of “grammar” bit • Choice of texts • Note also, original model involves only translation L2-L1 • aim is to ensure comprehension and, perhaps, to improve L1 writing skills

20. More reasons not to teach translation • It is independent of the four skills which define language competence (reading, writing, speaking, listening) • It is radically different from these • It takes up valuable time which could be better used teaching these • It is unnatural

21. More reasons not to teach translation (cont.) • It misleads students into believing in 1:1 correspondences between languages • It prevents students from thinking in the L2 • It produces interference • It is a bad test of L2 skills • It is only appropriate for trainee translators

22. Many of these can be refuted • Indeed translation persists as a classroom activity • Both formally as an exercise • And informally, as a quick means to explain things

23. Contemporary use of translation in language classroom • French: thème (into L2) vs. version (into L1) • Different uses of translation at different stages of learning: • “In the elementary stages, translation from L1 to L2 may be useful as a form of control and consolidation of basic grammar and vocabulary. […] • “In the middle stages, translation from L2 to L1 of words and clauses may be useful in dealing with errors; therefore interference, interlanguage or unconscious translationese can be illuminated by back-translation. […] • “In the advanced … stage of language teaching, translation form L1 to L2 and L2 to L1 is recognised as a fifth skill…” (Newmark 1991).

24. Translation into L2 • Generally not seen as something translators do • Useful as a measure of L2 acquisition • It’s what people think linguists do • Exercises can give some insight into interlanguage development • Little or no attention paid to concept of interlanguage in TS community, though translators often produce a style which is neither L1 nor L2 – Campbell 1992 • Easier to control vocabulary and structures to be tested • Easier to assess, thanks to model answers (albeit multiple) • Are these pedagogically sound reasons?

25. How can MT help? • Keep coming back to “MT as bad model” to reinforce awareness of differences • Alternative to full MT: some CAT tools • Translation memory: can provide some nice exercises (alternative to gap-filling) • Interactive translation: pinpoints areas of divergence

26. Translation memory

28. Translation into L1 • Seems a natural thing for learners to do • But it develops L1 skills, not L2 skills • Brings us back to recurrent themes: • Grammar-Translation model • language learner as trainee translator

29. Regardless of direction … • Translation in either direction an important element in lexical acquisition • Highlighting general differences, e.g. motion verbs in E and F • Focussing on shared cognates and false friends (Anderman 1998)

30. How to conclude? “It would seem that very many lovers of languages love to translate, it is a very motivating activity, more so perhaps than some other language learning activities conducted exclusively in the target language. This feature is perhaps something teachers can capitalize on.” (Sewell 1996)

31. How to conclude? Anecdotal evidence is that using MT is an enjoyable exercise which “makes a change” for some students.The “strange and often humorous” L1 constructions produced by the students help to fix the correct L2 constructions in their minds. (Richmond 1994)

32. How to conclude? “It would, of course, be foolish to claim that a study of MT should be part of the standard repertoire of language-learning activities. However, many students expressed the view that they have increased their cognitive knowledge of [L2] grammar through having to enter information in the system’s dictionaries; for those students whose command of formal grammar is weak, the MT dictionaries appear to provide a stimulus for researching areas of basic grammatical structure ....” (Lewis 1997)

33.  Tentative (surprise?) conclusion • MT may be a nice toy – a novelty – but it’s not designed as a language-teaching tool, so you shouldn’t use it as one: • If you want to haul hay, get a tractor