The Equivalence of Human Versus Google Translation: A Case Study of Translating Natural Science Writings

Aulia Addinillah Arum(1), Nadia Khumairo Ma'shumah(2*),

(1) Faculty of Cultural Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
(2) Faculty of Cultural Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Although recent advancements in machine translation have improved lexical and grammatical accuracy, assessing its effectiveness in rendering contextually and semantically accurate translations remains inadequate. This gap overlooks how systems like Google Translate handle specialized terms and subtle shifts in language style, particularly when working with field-specific texts. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of Google Translate in rendering natural science texts from English into Indonesian, with particular focus on its semantic accuracy when compared to human translation. The data consisted of 76 sentences drawn from six scientific texts, which were segmented into 41 single words as well as 35 multi-word phrases obtained from professional ProZ translator portfolios, and subsequently translated using Google Translate. The translations were analyzed for inaccuracies, classified as under-translation, over-translation, and mistranslation, drawing on Baker’s (1992) theory of propositional meaning and also Nida’s (1964) receptor-oriented framework. The analysis revealed that while Google Translate frequently produced grammatically correct structures, it often failed to generate contextually appropriate or domain-specific terms, resulting in semantic inequi-valence with human translations. The findings indicate that these limitations are not inherent to the lexical output itself, but rather emerge from the system’s inability to capture nuanced meanings, specialized registers, as well as situational contexts. Therefore, human translators remain indispensable in ensuring accuracy and reliability in field-specific translations, whereas machine translation is best positioned as a supportive tool for general comprehension.


Keywords


Human Translation; Google Translate; Propositional Meaning; Translation Equivalence

Full Text:

PDF

References


Angelelli, C. V., & Jacobson, H. E. (Eds.). (2009). Testing and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting Studies: A Call for Dialogue Between Research and Practice: Vol. XIV. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xiv

Baker, M. (2018). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Bassnett, S. (2002). Translation Studies (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Bassnett, S. (2005). Translation Studies (4th ed.). Routledge.

Castilho, S., Doherty, S., Gaspari, F., & Moorkens, J. (2018). Approaches to Human and Machine Translation Quality Assessment. In J. Moorkens, S. Castilho, F. Gaspari, & S. Doherty (Eds.), Translation Quality Assessment: From Principles to Practice (Vol. 1, pp. 9–38). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3- 319-91241-7

Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford University Press.

Das, P., Kuznetsova, A., Zhu, M., & Milanaik, R. (2019). Dangers of machine translation: the need for professionally translated anticipatory guidance resources for limited English proficiency caregivers. Clinical Pediatrics, 58(2), 247–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922818809494

Givón, T. (1993). English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction (Vol. 1). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.engram1

Groves, M., & Mundt, K. (2015). Friend or foe? Google Translate in language for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.09.001

Hatim, B., & Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An Advanced Resource Book. Routledge.

House, J. (2015). Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. Routledge.

Jakobson, R. (1959). On linguistic aspects of translation. In Brower R. (Ed.), On Translation (pp. 232-239). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674731615.c18

Kim, W. D. (2019). Translations in Korea: Theory and Practice. Springer.

Koller, W. (1979). Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Quelle and Meyer.

Koller, W. (1995). The concept of equivalence and the object of translation studies. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies, 7(2), 191–222. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.7.2.02kol

Larson, M. L. (1984). Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-language Equivalence. University Press of America, Inc.

Läubli, S., & Orrego-Carmona, D. (2017). When Google Translate Is Better Than Some Human Colleagues, Those People Are No Longer Colleagues. https://doi.org/10.5167/UZH-147260

Li, H., Graesser, A. C., & Cai, Z. (2014). Comparison of Google translation with human translation. Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, 6, 190–195.

Lommel, A. (2018). Metrics for translation quality assessment: a case for standardising error typologies. In J. Moorkens, S. Castilho, F. Gaspari, & Doherty, Stephen (Eds.), Translation Quality Assessment: From Principles to Practice (Vol. 1, pp. 109–128). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3- 319- 91241-7

Munday, J. (2009). The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies (J. Munday, Ed.; p. 252). Routledge.

Munday, J. (2008). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (2nd ed., p. 236). Routledge.

Nababan, M. R. (2016). Teori Menerjemah Bahasa Inggris (4th ed.). Pustaka Pelajar.

Nababan, M. R., Nuraeni, A., & Sumardiono. (2012). Pengembangan model penilaian kualitas terjemahan. Kajian Linguistik Dan Sastra, 24(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.23917/kls.v24i1.101

Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. Prentice Hall International vUIO Ltd.

Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. E. J. Brill.

Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. (1974). The Theory and Practice of Translation. E. J. Brill.

Nida, E., & Taber, C. (1974). The Theory and Practice of Translation. E. J. Brill.

Nord, C. (1997). Translation as a Purposeful Activity, Functionalist Approaches Explained. St. Jerome Publishing.

Panou, D. (2013). Equivalence in translation theories: A critical evaluation. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.1.1-6

Pym, A. (2004). The Moving Text: Localization, Translation, and Distribution. John Benjamins.

Sutrisno, A. (2020). The accuracy and shortcomings of Google Translate translating English sentences to Indonesian. Education Quarterly Reviews, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.03.04.161

Verhaar, J. W. M. (2016). Asas-Asas Linguistik Umum (9th ed.). Gadjah Mada University Press.

Vinay, J. P., & Darbelnet, J. (1955). Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation. John Benjamins.

Williams, J., & Chestermen, A. (2002). The Map: A Beginner's Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies (2nd ed.). St. Jerome Publishing

Williams, M. (2004). Translation Quality Assessment: An Argumentation-Centered Approach. University of Ottawa Press.

Wills, W. (1982). The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods. Gunter.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/joll.v25i2.10468

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Journal of Language and Literature (JOLL) is published by Prodi Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

JOLL is indexed in:


This journal is is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

View My Stats