How Machine Translation Systems Handle Relative Clause Attachment: A Comparative Analysis
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The use of machine translators (MTs) in teaching and learning English has increased in recent years. This study investigates how English-to-Korean and Korean-to-English MTs handle relative clause (RC) attachment. A total of 72 sentences 36 English and 36 Korean were collected from 16 research articles on RC attachment. The collected RC attachment items were categorized into three types: ambiguous, high attachment (HA), and low attachment (LA). English RCs with ambiguity (n=18) were translated into ambiguous Korean RCs; LA preference sentences (n=16) were translated into Korean RCs as LA. However, Korean RCs with ambiguity (n=34) were translated into ambiguous English RCs or HA preference sentences. Results showed that RCs with ambiguity in English and Korean were translated differently into the target language. The main cause of this distinction seemed to be that Korean RCs involving genitive case -uy were translated into English RCs using prepositions such as of and the genitive -’s. These two possible structures resulted in two different outcomes in English: (i) NP-of-NP structures, where ambiguity is preserved, or (ii) NP’s NP structures, where only HA preference was possible. These findings suggest that RC attachment is translated differently between the two languages by MTs.
Abstract
The use of machine translators (MTs) in teaching and learning English has increased in recent years. This study investigates how English-to-Korean and Korean-to-English MTs handle relative clause (RC) attachment. A total of 72 sentences 36 English and 36 Korean were collected from 16 research articles on RC attachment. The collected RC attachment items were categorized into three types: ambiguous, high attachment (HA), and low attachment (LA). English RCs with ambiguity (n=18) were translated into ambiguous Korean RCs; LA preference sentences (n=16) were translated into Korean RCs as LA. However, Korean RCs with ambiguity (n=34) were translated into ambiguous English RCs or HA preference sentences. Results showed that RCs with ambiguity in English and Korean were translated differently into the target language. The main cause of this distinction seemed to be that Korean RCs involving genitive case -uy were translated into English RCs using prepositions such as of and the genitive -’s. These two possible structures resulted in two different outcomes in English: (i) NP-of-NP structures, where ambiguity is preserved, or (ii) NP’s NP structures, where only HA preference was possible. These findings suggest that RC attachment is translated differently between the two languages by MTs.
참고문헌 (22)
- Ahn, Soojun, "Students’ Perceptions of the Use of Online Machine Translation in L2 Writing", Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 23(2), pp.10~35 (2020)
- Carreiras, M., "Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English", Language and speech, 36(4), pp.353~372 (1993)
- Cuetos, F., "Cross-linguistic differences in parsing : Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish", Cognition, 30(1), pp.73~105 (1988)
- Dussias, P. E., "Spanish-English code mixing at the auxiliary phrase : Evidence from eye-movement data", Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana, 1(2), pp.7~34 (2003)
- Frazier, L., "Syntactic processing : evidence from Dutch", Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 5(4), pp.519~559 (1987)
- Frazier, L., "Construal" (1996), MIT press
- Gibson, E., "Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism", Cognition, 59(1), pp.23~59 (1996)
- Jun, Sun-Ah, "Default prosody and relative clause attachment in Japanese", Japanese-Korean Linguistics, 13(1), pp.41~53 (2008)
- Kim, Ji Hyon, "Working memory effects on L1 and L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses by Korean L2 learners of English", Second Language Research, 33(3), pp.365~388 (2017)
- Kim, Chae-Eun, "Korean children’s acquisition of relative clauses", Language Research, 51(2), pp.421~441 (2016)
- Kim, Chae-Eun., "Korean EFL learners’ use of complex RCs in a CMC context", Modern English Education, 19(1), pp.29~37 (2018)
- Kim, Chae-Eun, "A study on relative clauses in Korean-to-English machine translation systems", English 21, 34(4), pp.279~305 (2021)
- Kim, Chae-Eun, "Analysis of Korean-to-English machine translation systems’ treatment of passives", Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 26(1), pp.87~103 (2022)
- Kim, Chae-Eun, "Analysis of passives in English-to-Korean machine translation systems’ output", Modern English Education, 24(1), pp.1~9 (2023)
- Kim, Chae-Eun, "Analysis of Relative Clauses in English-to-Korean Machine Translation Systems’ Output", Modern English Education, 25, pp.74~84 (2024)
- Kim, Hye-Kyung, "College students’ perceptions of AI-based writing learning tools : With a focus on Google Translate, Naver Papago, and Grammarly", Modern English Education, 22(4), pp.90~100 (2021)
- Kim, Ji-Hye, "Interpretations of Korean Reflexive Binding by Late L2 learners of Korean with English and Chinese L1", Language and Information, 14(1), pp.67~91 (2010)
- Lee, Dami, "A sentence processing study of relative clauses in Korean with two attachment sites", Discourse and Cognition, 11(2), pp.125~140 (2004)
- Papadopoulou, D., "Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing : The role of lexical and contextual information", Journal of Linguistics, 42(1), pp.109~138 (2006)
- Park, Boon Joo, "Sentence processing of EFL learners in English relative clause attachment", The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 18(2), pp.69~88 (2010)
- Park, Junsuk, "Analysis of the types of translation errors by the Google Translator", The Journal of English Language &Literature, 59(4), pp.279~299 (2017)
- Park, Jiwon, "The interpretations of English relative clauses by Korean EFL learners in attachment preference and ambiguity perception", The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 30(1), pp.23~44 (2022)