1. This study compares the style shift between human and machine translators in Korean-Chinese newspaper editorial translation.
2. The analysis found noticeable differences in recurring shift patterns, indicating that the human translator used more shifts than the machine translator.
3. The human translator expanded mostly by adding boosters and changing the directness of request expressions, while the machine translator deleted attitude markers, added engagement markers, and self-mentions more frequently.
The article titled "Comparing Style Shift Among Machine Translation and Human Translation: Case Study of Korean-Chinese Newspaper Editorial Translation" aims to investigate the differences in style between human and machine translators in Korean-Chinese newspaper editorial translation. The study uses a quantitative analysis of optional translation shifts of interactional metadiscourse markers to identify recurring shift patterns that represent the translator's style.
Overall, the article provides a detailed analysis of the differences in style between human and machine translators. However, there are some potential biases and limitations that need to be considered.
Firstly, the study only focuses on one specific type of translation (Korean-Chinese newspaper editorial translation), which may not be representative of all types of translations. Therefore, it is important to consider whether the findings can be generalized to other types of translations.
Secondly, the study only analyzes optional translation shifts of interactional metadiscourse markers, which may not capture all aspects of style differences between human and machine translators. Other factors such as sentence structure, word choice, and tone may also contribute to style differences.
Thirdly, the article does not provide any evidence for its claims about the tendencies revealed in the quantitative analysis. For example, it claims that "the human translator used more shifts than the machine translator," but does not provide any data or statistics to support this claim.
Fourthly, there is no exploration of counterarguments or alternative explanations for the observed differences in style between human and machine translators. For example, it is possible that these differences are due to limitations in current machine translation technology rather than inherent differences in translating styles.
Finally, there is no discussion of potential risks associated with relying on machine translation over human translation. While machine translation can be faster and more cost-effective than human translation, it may also result in lower quality translations that could have negative consequences for businesses or individuals relying on them.
In conclusion, while the article provides valuable insights into the differences in style between human and machine translators in Korean-Chinese newspaper editorial translation, it is important to consider its potential biases and limitations when interpreting its findings. Further research is needed to fully understand these differences and their implications for different types of translations.