Embedded Files
Дата публикации: Mar 20, 2016 12:56:2 PM
Machine translation (MT) is slower and less accurate than human translation and there is no immediate or predictable likelihood of machines taking over this role from humans.
Do you agree or disagree?
Write at least 250 words.
+
Клише для эссе и ответов на вопросы
Фразы для оформления каркаса эссе.
A letter of complaint structure. Linking phrases.
1.
Nowadays, machine translation is very fast but inaccurate in comparison with human translation.
I have Google Translate which can translate web pages, texts and even speech in one hundred languages but I haven't still had a good automatic translation.
You may say I'm a fussy customer, but I've never heard of an accurate machine translation of a novel or even a short story.
I have never worked with commercial translation programs but, as I know, they all are far from excellent results.
Frankly speaking, I believe that there is no immediate or predictable likelihood of machines taking over this role from humans at least in the near future.
The first reason why I believe so is that every language is getting changed all time.
Even if a machine translator had all the rules and words of a language it would have all these things at the particular point in time.
In that case, how does it translate old or even ancient texts and speeches?
What's more, it cannot translate newly-arrived words and structures that will appear in language through communication between people.
The second reason why I consider machine as quite useless translators is that the most required texts to translate are non-technical ones.
I think that a technical text is presumably easy to translate because it has no emotion, no connotation, and no modality.
As a matter of fact, a machine can translate only morphological part of a text - the form but not a content.
So, machine translation is always a word-for-word translation while I suppose that a good translation is a rethinking one.
The latter can be done only by a human translator who speaks both languages very well.
These two reasons lead us to the final and the main reason why machines cannot supersede humans as translators and interpreters.
I believe that a machine can be an accurate translator only if it is a kind of artificial intelligence.
In that case, it can take part in a language changing process and can feel emotion, connotation, and modality in texts and speeches.
I think that scientists are still far away from a realization of AI and, consequently, from a translation program.
To sum up I would like to say that there is no immediate or predictable likelihood of machines taking over a translator role from humans at least in the near future because machines don't feel emotions, connotations and modality in the language. To be a translator, a machine has to become an artificial intelligence.
Nowadays, machine translation is very fast but inaccurate in comparison with human translation.
I have Google Translate which can translate web pages, texts and even speech in one hundred languages but I haven't still had a good automatic translation.
You may say I'm a fussy customer, but I've never heard of an accurate machine translation of a novel or even a short story.
I have never worked with commercial translation programs but, as I know, they all are far from excellent results.
Frankly speaking, I believe that there is no immediate or predictable likelihood of machines taking over this role from humans at least in the near future.
The first reason why I believe so is that every language is getting changed all time.
Even if a machine translator had all the rules and words of a language it would have all these things at the particular point in time.
In that case, how does it translate old or even ancient texts and speeches?
What's more, it cannot translate newly-arrived words and structures that will appear in language through communication between people.
The second reason why I consider machine as quite useless translators is that the most required texts to translate are non-technical ones.
I think that a technical text is presumably easy to translate because it has no emotion, no connotation, and no modality.
As a matter of fact, a machine can translate only morphological part of a text - the form but not a content.
So, machine translation is always a word-for-word translation while I suppose that a good translation is a rethinking one.
The latter can be done only by a human translator who speaks both languages very well.
These two reasons lead us to the final and the main reason why machines cannot supersede humans as translators and interpreters.
I believe that a machine can be an accurate translator only if it is a kind of artificial intelligence.
In that case, it can take part in a language changing process and can feel emotion, connotation, and modality in texts and speeches.
I think that scientists are still far away from a realization of AI and, consequently, from a translation program.
To sum up I would like to say that there is no immediate or predictable likelihood of machines taking over a translator role from humans at least in the near future because machines don't feel emotions, connotations and modality in the language. To be a translator, a machine has to become an artificial intelligence.
Word count: 418
2.
Nowadays, machine translation is very fast but very inaccurate way to translate a text.
For example, Google Translate can translate web pages, texts and even speech in one hundred languages but I don't consider it as a good translator.
I've never heard of an accurate machine translation of a novel or even a short story because translation programs, either commercial or free ones, are still far away from excellent results.
Frankly speaking, I believe that machines won't take over a translator role from humans at least in the near future.
The first reason, why I believe so, is that they are a lot of non-technical texts which require translation.
I think that a technical text is, presumably, easy to translate because there is no emotion, no connotation, and no modality in it.
As a matter of fact, a machine can translate only morphological part of the text. It cannot see the content.
So, machine translation is always a word-for-word translation while I suppose a good translation to be a rethinking one.
This kind of translation can be done only by a person who speaks both languages very well.
The second reason why machines cannot supersede humans as translators and interpreters is that a machine can be an accurate translator only if it is a kind of artificial intelligence.
In that case, it will be able to feel emotion, connotation, and modality in texts and speeches.
Unfortunately, scientists are still far away from a realization of AI and, consequently, from an accurate translation program.
To sum up, I would like to say that machine translation don't take over traditional translation because machines don't feel emotions, connotations, and modality in the language. To be a translator, a machine has to become an artificial intelligence.
Nowadays, machine translation is very fast but very inaccurate way to translate a text.
For example, Google Translate can translate web pages, texts and even speech in one hundred languages but I don't consider it as a good translator.
I've never heard of an accurate machine translation of a novel or even a short story because translation programs, either commercial or free ones, are still far away from excellent results.
Frankly speaking, I believe that machines won't take over a translator role from humans at least in the near future.
The first reason, why I believe so, is that they are a lot of non-technical texts which require translation.
I think that a technical text is, presumably, easy to translate because there is no emotion, no connotation, and no modality in it.
As a matter of fact, a machine can translate only morphological part of the text. It cannot see the content.
So, machine translation is always a word-for-word translation while I suppose a good translation to be a rethinking one.
This kind of translation can be done only by a person who speaks both languages very well.
The second reason why machines cannot supersede humans as translators and interpreters is that a machine can be an accurate translator only if it is a kind of artificial intelligence.
In that case, it will be able to feel emotion, connotation, and modality in texts and speeches.
Unfortunately, scientists are still far away from a realization of AI and, consequently, from an accurate translation program.
To sum up, I would like to say that machine translation don't take over traditional translation because machines don't feel emotions, connotations, and modality in the language. To be a translator, a machine has to become an artificial intelligence.
Word count: 292
3.
Nowadays, machine translation is very fast but very inaccurate way to translate a text.
For example, Google Translate can translate web pages, texts, and even speech in one hundred languages but I don't consider it as a good translator.
I've never heard of an accurate machine translation of a novel or even a short story because translation programs, either commercial or free ones, are still far away from excellent results.
Frankly speaking, I believe that machines won't take over a translator role from humans, at least in the near future.
The first reason, why I believe so, is that they are non-technical texts that require translation.
I think that a technical text is, presumably, easy to translate because there is no emotion, no connotation, and no modality in it.
As a matter of fact, a machine can translate only morphological part of the text because it cannot see the content.
So, machine translation is always a word-for-word translation, while I suppose a good translation to be a rethinking one.
This kind of translation can be done only by a person who speaks both languages very well.
The second reason why machines cannot supersede humans as translators and interpreters is that a machine can be an accurate translator only if it is a kind of artificial intelligence.
In that case, it will be able to feel emotion, connotation, and modality in texts and speeches.
Unfortunately, scientists are still far away from a realization of AI and, consequently, from an accurate translation program.
To sum up, I would like to say that machine translation cannot take over traditional translation because machines can't feel emotions, connotations, and modality in the language.
To be a translator, a machine has to become an artificial intelligence.
Nowadays, machine translation is very fast but very inaccurate way to translate a text.
For example, Google Translate can translate web pages, texts, and even speech in one hundred languages but I don't consider it as a good translator.
I've never heard of an accurate machine translation of a novel or even a short story because translation programs, either commercial or free ones, are still far away from excellent results.
Frankly speaking, I believe that machines won't take over a translator role from humans, at least in the near future.
The first reason, why I believe so, is that they are non-technical texts that require translation.
I think that a technical text is, presumably, easy to translate because there is no emotion, no connotation, and no modality in it.
As a matter of fact, a machine can translate only morphological part of the text because it cannot see the content.
So, machine translation is always a word-for-word translation, while I suppose a good translation to be a rethinking one.
This kind of translation can be done only by a person who speaks both languages very well.
The second reason why machines cannot supersede humans as translators and interpreters is that a machine can be an accurate translator only if it is a kind of artificial intelligence.
In that case, it will be able to feel emotion, connotation, and modality in texts and speeches.
Unfortunately, scientists are still far away from a realization of AI and, consequently, from an accurate translation program.
To sum up, I would like to say that machine translation cannot take over traditional translation because machines can't feel emotions, connotations, and modality in the language.
To be a translator, a machine has to become an artificial intelligence.
290 words
Final
Machine translation (MT) is slower and less accurate than human translation and there is no immediate or predictable likelihood of machines taking over this role from humans.
Do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, machine translation is very fast but very inaccurate way to translate a text. For example, Google Translate can translate web pages, texts, and even speech in one hundred languages but I don't consider it as a good translator. I've never heard of an accurate machine translation of a novel or even a short story because translation programs, either commercial or free ones, are still far away from excellent results. Frankly speaking, I believe that machines won't take over a translator role from humans, at least in the near future.
The first reason, why I believe so, is that they are non-technical texts that require translation. I think that a technical text is, presumably, easy to translate because there is no emotion, no connotation, and no modality in it. As a matter of fact, a machine can translate only morphological part of the text because it cannot see the content. So, machine translation is always a word-for-word translation, while I suppose a good translation to be a rethinking one. This kind of translation can be done only by a person who speaks both languages very well.
The second reason why machines cannot supersede humans as translators and interpreters is that a machine can be an accurate translator only if it is a kind of artificial intelligence. In that case, it will be able to feel emotion, connotation, and modality in texts and speeches. Unfortunately, scientists are still far away from a realization of AI and, consequently, from an accurate translation program.
To sum up, I would like to say that machine translation cannot take over traditional translation because machines can't feel emotions, connotations, and modality in the language. To be a translator, a machine has to become an artificial intelligence.
---
Task achievement – excellent
Organization – excellent
Grammar – very good : very fast but very inaccurate way – article?
Lexics – very good far away from; accurate; can't
Orthography – good: no emotion, no connotation, and no modality; to feel emotion, connotation, and modality in texts
far from - different
far away from - distance
translate something (from something) (into something) He translated the letter into English.
2.
Nowadays, machine translation is a very fast but a very inaccurate way to translate a text. For example, Google Translate can translate web pages, texts, and even speech into one hundred languages but I don't consider it as a good translator. I've never heard of an accurate machine translation of a novel or even a short story because translation programs, either commercial or free ones, are still far from excellent results. Frankly speaking, I believe that machines won't take over a translator role from humans, at least in the near future.
The first reason, why I believe so, is that they are non-technical texts that require translation. I think that a technical text is, presumably, easy to translate because there is no emotion, no connotation, and no modality in it. As a matter of fact, a machine can translate only morphological part of the text because it cannot see the content. So, machine translation is always a word-for-word translation, while I suppose a good translation to be a rethinking one. This kind of translation can be done only by a person who speaks both languages very well.
The second reason why machines cannot supersede humans as translators and interpreters is that a machine can be an accurate translator only if it is a kind of artificial intelligence. In that case, it will be able to feel emotion, connotation, and modality in texts and speeches. Unfortunately, scientists are still far from a realization of AI and, consequently, from an accurate translation program.
To sum up, I would like to say that machine translation cannot take over traditional translation because machines can't feel emotions, connotations, and modality in the language. To be a translator, a machine has to become an artificial intelligence.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse