The debate between human and technological translators rages on like never before thanks to the prevalence of services like Google Translate. Can a machine really convey meaning across languages with an acceptable level of accuracy? Well, as it turns out, the answer depends on why text needs to be translated. We compared a human translator and Google Translate in a few tests to determine the strengths and weaknesses of both.
Test 1: Text
A sample of Spanish marketing copy was typed into Google Translate and presented to a human translator, and we compared the resulting English text.
Google Translate left us with a very literal, word-for-word translation of the text we entered. While this is useful for getting the gist of things, it can be disastrous for marketing, where nuance and figures of speech are used to convey meaning more than the literal meaning of the words themselves.
The word choices in the translation were basic, and they didn’t take into account the flow or the tone of the passage. Those sophisticated touches are something a machine can’t accomplish easily; the human translator’s rendering of the passage avoided the fractured syntax and awkward phrasing of Google Translate’s work.
Human translators bring a more robust suite of interpretation tools for translation. While Google Translate is great for getting across the basic meaning of the text, it failed to capture the richness and easy reading of the original passage in this test.
Test 2: Speaker
For our second test, we used an audio clip with a single speaker to compare the abilities of Google Translate and a human translator. Again, the passage we chose was Spanish.
Google Translate does a surprisingly good job of interpreting the audio, though the file we chose to feature a single speaker who spoke rather slowly. It did attempt to translate a nonsense word at the beginning of the clip. As with the previous test, Google Translate created a literal passage that captured the gist of the spoken passage, but failed to deliver it in nature, rich English.
We didn’t test Google Translate with a long audio file or one that includes speakers with different accents. The jury is still out on that one.
Conclusion
Google Translate is a quick, easy translation tool for things that don’t require a smooth read. It’s great for information consumers who need to read the signs or directions, instant messaging conversations, or Web pages.
For projects where the flow and nuance of the language matter, a human translator wins out every time. Even though they’re more expensive than using Google Translate, the accuracy and readability rendered by a human are vital to any public-facing documents or anything that’s legal or financial nature. Businesses stand to benefit from using human translators.
