Linguistic Features of Genre and Method Variation in Translation: A Computational Perspective

Authors: Ekaterina Lapshninova-Koltunski, Marcos Zampieri

To appear as a book chapter in Grammar of Genres and Styles. De Gruyter

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 1709.04359v1

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Key points
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
In their paper titled "Linguistic Features of Genre and Method Variation in Translation: A Computational Perspective," authors Ekaterina Lapshninova-Koltunski and Marcos Zampieri explore the use of text classification methods to investigate genre and method variation in an English-German translation corpus. The authors utilize linguistically motivated features, which represent texts using a combination of part-of-speech tags arranged in bigrams, trigrams, and 4-grams. They employ a Bayesian classifier with Laplace smoothing as the classification method. The output of these classifiers is then used to carry out an extensive feature analysis on the main differences between genres and methods of translation. The study's findings reveal that certain linguistic features are more prevalent in specific genres or translation methods. For instance, translations produced by human translators tend to have more complex sentence structures than those generated by machine translation systems. Additionally, literary translations exhibit more variation in vocabulary compared to technical translations. The authors argue that their approach can be used for further research into genre and method variation across different language pairs and can inform the development of better machine translation systems. This paper is set to appear as a book chapter in Grammar of Genres and Styles published by De Gruyter.
AI-generated keywords: Translation Genre Method Linguistic Features Classification

AI-generated Key Points

  • The paper explores genre and method variation in an English-German translation corpus
  • Linguistically motivated features are used to represent texts using part-of-speech tags arranged in bigrams, trigrams, and 4-grams
  • A Bayesian classifier with Laplace smoothing is employed as the classification method
  • Certain linguistic features are more prevalent in specific genres or translation methods
  • Human translators tend to produce translations with more complex sentence structures than machine translation systems
  • Literary translations exhibit more variation in vocabulary compared to technical translations
  • The approach can be used for further research into genre and method variation across different language pairs
  • The study's findings can inform the development of better machine translation systems.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Abstract: In this paper we describe the use of text classification methods to investigate genre and method variation in an English - German translation corpus. For this purpose we use linguistically motivated features representing texts using a combination of part-of-speech tags arranged in bigrams, trigrams, and 4-grams. The classification method used in this paper is a Bayesian classifier with Laplace smoothing. We use the output of the classifiers to carry out an extensive feature analysis on the main difference between genres and methods of translation.

Submitted to arXiv on 13 Sep. 2017

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Export BibTeX · RIS (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) · Markdown (Notion, Obsidian) · Premium
Citation alerts Premium
Journal club Slides to present it Premium
For journalists Press kit and hype check Premium

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.