MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992520036 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v3n1p31

Linguistic Divergences in English to Bengali Translation

2013· article· en· W1992520036 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Niladri Sekhar Dash

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Human Resource DevelopmentMinistry of Education, IndiaUniversity of Calcutta
KeywordsBengaliComputer scienceMachine translationNatural language processingExample-based machine translationArtificial intelligenceDivergence (linguistics)LinguisticsEvaluation of machine translationMachine translation software usabilityTranslation (biology)Context (archaeology)Rule-based machine translationDynamic and formal equivalenceProcess (computing)LexiconTask (project management)HistoryProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Translation is an endeavour to automate all or part of the process of translation from one language to another. In general, translation is a complex task, which aims at preserving the semantic and stylistic equivalents of the source language texts into the target language texts. The most problematic area in manual and machine translation is the lexicon and the role it plays according to the context to create deviations. There are also cases where deviations occur owing to the divergence – one of the complex areas of investigation in translation. Divergence in translation normally arises when the sentences in the source language are realized differently in the target language. This paper seeks to discuss some of the major divergences that observed in English to Bengali translation. It also investigates how the different linguistic and extralinguistic constraints can play decisive roles in translation, resulting in divergences and other issues. The primary objective of this paper is to understand the types of divergence problems that operate behind English to Bengali translation the study of which is still in a state of its infancy. Proper identification and understanding of these problems are important in both manual and machine translation. Moreover, resolution of these problems is a pre-requisite for designing a robust machine translation system between the languages considered for the present study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207