La traducción de ida y vuelta como herramienta de escritura en el inglés como segunda lengua

  1. Juan Rafael Zamorano-Mansilla 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Revista:
Elia: Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada

ISSN: 1576-5059

Año de publicación: 2023

Número: 23

Páginas: 123-150

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.12795/ELIA.2023.I23.04 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Elia: Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada

Resumen

El potencial de la técnica conocida como traducción de ida y vuelta para detectar errores se ha empleado en el diseño de programas para la detección automática de errores (Hermet y Désilets, 2009; Madnani et al., 2012), pero hasta ahora ningún estudio ha explorado el potencial de los traductores como herramienta que los propios estudiantes pueden utilizar para corregir su producción escrita. En consecuencia, no hay información sobre cuántas de las transformaciones introducidas por la traducción de ida y vuelta son útiles para los estudiantes, cuántas se limitan a reformular el texto original o cuántas lo empeoran. Hermet y Désilets (2009) dan una “tasa de reparación” del 66,4% aplicado a las preposiciones en francés, mientras que Madnani et al. (2012) reportan un 36% de cambios exitosos, un 33% de parafraseos y un 31% de cambios a peor en 200 oraciones en inglés. En el presente estudio se ha descubierto una mejora significativa en el número de correcciones en textos escritos en inglés por hablantes nativos de español peninsular (97%) a costa de generar un número excesivo de falsos positivos (34%). Las transformaciones más fiables afectan a la ortografía o la morfología de las palabras, que corrigen los errores en un 88,33% y un 78,57 de los casos, respectivamente. Estos resultados muestran el avance de la traducción automática y la fiabilidad de la traducción de ida y vuelta para corregir errores e informan de qué transformaciones son más útiles.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Benda, J. (2013). Google Translate in the EFL classroom: Taboo or teaching tool? Writing and Pedagogy, 5(2), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v5i2.317
  • Brockett, C., Dolan, W. B., & Gamon, M. (2006). Correcting ESL errors using phrasal SMT techniques. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING) and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 249–256. https://doi.org/10.3115/1220175.1220207
  • Cancino, M., & Panes, J. (2021). The impact of Google Translate on L2 writing quality measures: Evidence from Chilean EFL high school learners. System, 98, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102464
  • Chodorow, M., Dickinson, M., Israel, R., & Tetreault, J. (2012). Problems in evaluating grammatical error detection systems. In Proceedings of COLING 2012, 611–628. https://aclanthology.org/C12-1038.pdf
  • Chon, Y. V., Shin, D., & Kim, G. E. (2021). Comparing L2 learners’ writing against parallel machine-translated texts: Raters’ assessment, linguistic complexity and errors. System, 96, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102408
  • Chung, E. S. (2020). The effect of L2 proficiency on post-editing machine translated texts. Journal of Asia TEFL, 17(1), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.1.11.182
  • Chung, E. S., & Ahn, S. (2021). The effect of using machine translation on linguistic features in L2 writing across proficiency levels and text genres. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1871029
  • Clifford, J., Merschel, L., & Munné, J. (2013). Surveying the Landscape: What is the Role of Machine Translation in Language Learning? @tic Revista d’Innovació Educativa, 10, 108–123. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3495/349532398012.pdf
  • Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 9(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1971.9.2.147
  • Correa, M. (2011). Academic Dishonesty in the Second Language Classroom: Instructors’ Perspectives. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 1(1), 65–79. https://www.academia.edu/download/7863470/correa2011-MJLTM.pdf
  • Correa, M. (2014). Leaving the “peer” out of peer-editing: Online translators as a pedagogical tool. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 7(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2014.7.1.1
  • Dagneaux, E., Denness, S., & Granger, S. (1998). Computer-aided error analysis. System, 26(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00001-3
  • Díaz-Negrillo, A., & Fernández-Domínguez, J. (2006). Error tagging systems for learner corpora. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 19, 83–102. http://www4.ujaen.es/~svalera/Research/informatizacion/RESLA%202006.pdf
  • Ducar, C., & Schocket, D. H. (2018). Machine translation and the L2 classroom: Pedagogical solutions for making peace with Google translate. Foreign Language Annals, 51(4), 779–795. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/flan.12366
  • Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. Oxford University Press.
  • Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
  • 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
  • Heift, T., & Schulze, M. (2007). Errors and intelligence in computer-assisted language learning: Parsers and pedagogues. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203012215
  • Hermet, M., & Désilets, A. (2009). Using first and second language models to correct preposition errors in second language authoring. Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.3115/1609843.1609853
  • James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Pearson.
  • Kol, S., Schcolnik, M., & Spector-Cohen, E. (2018). Google translate in academic writing courses? The EUROCALL Review, 26(2), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2018.10140
  • Leacock, C., Chodorow, M., Gamon, M., & Tetreault, J. (2010). Automated grammatical error detection for language learners. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02137-4
  • Lee, S.-M. (2020). The impact of using machine translation on EFL students’ writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1553186
  • Lennon, P. (1991). Error: Some problems of definition, identification, and distinction. Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/12.2.180
  • Madnani, N., Tetreault, J., & Chodorow, M. (2012). Exploring grammatical error correction with not-so-crummy machine translation. Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Building Educational Applications Using NLP, 44–53. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W12-2005.pdf
  • Myers, E. W. (1986). AnO(ND) difference algorithm and its variations. Algorithmica, 1, 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01840446
  • McCarthy, B. (2004). Does online machine translation spell the end of take-home translation assignments? CALL-EJ Online, 6(1), 26–39. http://www.callej.org/journal/6-1/Mccarthy2004.pdf
  • Mujtaba, S. M., Parkash, R., & Reynolds, B. L. (2022). The effects of language proficiency and online translator training on second language writing complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexical complexity. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 150–167. https://repository.um.edu.mo/handle/10692/97205
  • Nicholls, D. (2003). The Cambridge learner corpus: Error coding and analysis for lexicography and ELT. Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2003 conference. Vol. 16., 572–581. https://www.academia.edu/download/43303478/CL2003_Nicholls.pdf
  • Niño, A. (2009). Machine translation in foreign language learning: Language learners’ and tutors’ perceptions of its advantages and disadvantages. ReCALL, 21(2), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344009000172
  • O’Neill, E. M. (2016). Measuring the Impact of Online Translation on FL Writing Scores. The IALLT Journal, 46(2), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.17161/iallt.v46i2.8560
  • Park, Y. A., & Levy, R. (2011). Automated whole sentence grammar correction using a noisy channel model. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 934–944. https://aclanthology.org/P11-1094.pdf
  • Pawlak, M. (2013). Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering the issues. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38436-3
  • Rauf, S. A., Saeed, R., Khan, N. S., Habib, K., Gabrail, P., & Aftab, F. (2017). Automated grammatical error correction: A comprehensive review. NUST Journal of Engineering Sciences, 10(2), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.24949/njes.v10i2.219
  • Sahu, S., Vishwakarma, Y. K., Kori, J., & Thakur, J. S. (2020). Evaluating performance of different grammar checking tools. International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering, 9(2), 2227–2233. https://doi.org/10.30534/ijatcse/2020/201922020
  • Stapleton, P. (2005). Using the web as a research source: Implications for L2 academic writing. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00273.x
  • Stapleton, P., & Leung Ka Kin, B. (2019). Assessing the accuracy and teachers’ impressions of Google Translate: A study of primary L2 writers in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 56, 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.07.001
  • Steding, S. (2009). Machine translation in the German classroom: Detection, reaction, prevention. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 42(2), 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-1221.2009.00052.x
  • Tsai, S.-C. (2019). Using google translate in EFL drafts: a preliminary investigation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1527361
  • Wallwork, A. (2016). English for academic research: A guide for teachers.Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32687-0
  • Park, Y. A., & Levy, R. (2011). Bilingual random walk models for automated grammar correction of ESL author-produced text. Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, 170–179. https://aclanthology.org/W11-1421.pdf
  • Yuan, Z., & Felice, M. (2013). Constrained grammatical error correction using statistical machine translation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning: Shared Task, 52–61. https://aclanthology.org/W13-3607.pdf
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet