This Sample Essay on Wordfast TM

Introduction

Under the fortunes of globalisation, the demand for high-quality and high- velocity interlingual renditions has been increasing worldwide. Satisfying these demands may ensue of the increasing of clip and cost for transcribers and interlingual rendition companies. Thus how heighten the quality and productiveness with low cost is one of the jobs. In order to accomplish the clip and cost economy, the computing machine assisted interlingual rendition ( CAT ) tools is playing an of import function in interlingual rendition industry. The CAT tools enabling to cover the whole interlingual rendition procedure at a clip has been created and commercialized by the linguistic communication industry in recent decennaries ( Austermuhl, 2001 ) .

Amongst interlingual rendition tools, interlingual rendition memory ( TM ) systems are considered as the effectual tools due to increasing interlingual rendition productiveness by offering old interlingual rendition automatically ( Austermuhl, 2001 ) . However, there are assorted TM systems worldwide and which is the most effectual may change depends on single demands such as linguistic communication system or text types.

This essay will try to measure two TM systems, SDL Trados Studio and Wordfast authoritative, by comparing each characteristic of operational maps. To compare and measure two TM systems, the construct of TM systems, characteristics of several TM systems foremost will be explained as background cognition of the treatment in this essay.

Wordfast Tm

The lineation of TM systems

Translation memory is a database of multilingual texts which allow to storage both the beginning and mark text sections in analogue and retrieved conformity with the set standards ( Austermuhl 2001 cites Expert Advisory Group on Language Engineering Standards, EAGLES ) .

Get quality help now

RhizMan

Verified

Proficient in: Application Software

4.9 (247)

“ Rhizman is absolutely amazing at what he does . I highly recommend him if you need an assignment done ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Namely, the mark text is foremost divided into section units and stored in TM through interlingual rendition procedure. These stored sections are available to be reused for the new interlingual rendition undertaking. If the sections stored in TM are absolutely matched or similar to the new beginning text, TM offers the old interlingual renditions automatically to a transcriber. The transcriber can make up one’s mind whether these offered interlingual renditions should be accepted or non. Besides it is possible to revise the old interlingual renditions in TM through and after interlingual rendition.

Esselink ( 2000 ) points out some disadvantage of TM as follows:

1. The Final layout of translated text is non displayed until completing the interlingual rendition. In this instance, proofreading after the interlingual rendition is required.
2. Some jobs may happen in TM direction, particularly in the instance of multilingual undertaking.
3. Revising TM after re-converted into the original manner is non available, viz. , in order to update TM, the translated file is required to be converted into TM ‘s acceptable format once more.
4. Time devouring due to the demand of change overing the beginning text into the appropriate format for interlingual rendition.
5. TM filter is non updated when the beginning text is a new file format. As a consequence, some agreement is required in order to be accepted.
6. Changing the construction of the text is non available within paragraph.
7. It is necessary to make the file filter depend on the file format if it is different from the default.

Sing above references, he ( 2000 ) suggests that the stuff text should be examined before interlingual rendition, and transcribers should make up one’s mind whether to utilize TM, because in some instances, interpreting without TM is more effectual than utilizing TM system.

Meanwhile, TM has recognized as effectual and time-saving engineering for monolithic interlingual renditions, particularly proficient or manual text which include some insistent usage of proficient nomenclature ( Mitkov 2007 ) . This is largely due to the effectivity against cut downing duplicative work and to heighten the uniformity of footings. For illustration, in the instance of the uninterrupted interlingual rendition undertaking of the specific field, the TM is offered to the transcriber and the proficient footings will be transferred from TM exactly to the new beginning text. By this agencies, TM allows transcribers to portion the alone nomenclature used in the specific field and contributes to keep the interlingual rendition quality.

The specific characteristics of Wordfast Classic TM operational maps

Wordfast Classic is defined as “ a CAT tool designed as a Microsoft Word™ add-on. Its lightweight, flexible construction makes it easy to put in and utilize ( Wordfast 2010 ) ” . This CAT tool comprises some utile operational maps, such as nomenclature direction, importing exporting glossary and TM, papers transition, analysis and alliance ( Wordfast 2010 ) .

Amongst the operational maps, some good characteristics of Wordfast Classic will be explained here.

ITI Bulletin ( 2006 ) points out that Wordfast Classic is simple to utilize, which can non merely use to Word but besides to Power Point, Access and Excel files by linking straight with Word application interface. It is besides compatible with other machine interlingual rendition plans such as PowerTranslator™ and other CAT tools such as Trados, by change overing TM into another format which is appropriate for several plan and exporting it ( ITI Bulletin 2006 ) . Importing other TM to Wordfast is besides available ( ITI Bulletin 2006 ) . In add-on, alignment map allows redacting the interlingual rendition stored in TM after interlingual rendition.

Since this CAT tool is available of free download to have computing machine with some restrictions, those who are sing to utilize this tool can seek and analyze how utile or non for them before paid enrollment ( ITI Bulletin 2006 ) . If download PlusTools™ and circuit board to the beginning papers, Wordfast Classic is available for a assortment of file format from HTML/ XLM to other labeled files ( Miller 2002 ) .

However, there are some of import reminders for utilizing Wordfast Classic. One of them is that it is necessary to make clean-up TM after interlingual rendition for updating the TM database ( Miller 2002 ) . Since database is stored as txt. format, revising the translated text is possible without Wordfast ( Miller 2002 ) . Thus transcribers tend to bury to update TM and glossary. As a consequence, the truth of TM will be lost and TM can non use to other new interlingual rendition undertaking.

The specific characteristics of Trados TM operational maps

Trados TM which consisting the beginning and mark sections, is created in the Translation Memories position ( Trados 2010 ) . Respective section brace of the beginning and mark is called a interlingual rendition unit and it is possible to add some information for each interlingual rendition unit such as when it was created and updated, and who created it ( Trados 2010 ) . Thus it might be utile to pull off the interlingual rendition history. The interlingual rendition unit is displayed in analogue, which is contributing to comparing of the beginning and mark section when redaction.

There are three types of fiting map: fuzzy, context and 100 % lucifer ( Trados 2010 ) . Although the default of Fuzzy fiting rate is set at 70 % or over, this rate is able to be changed ( Trados 2010 ) . Context lucifer is applied when the beginning text and TM section lucifer absolutely and have the same context ( Trados 2010 ) . 100 % lucifer means the beginning text section lucifer precisely with the TM section ( Trados 2010 ) .

In footings of the cleavage, Trados can custom-make the cleavage regulations depend on several linguistic communications ; Chinese, French, English, German, Spanish and Japanese, which are supported by Trados ( Trados 2010 ) . Therefore, there is non required to set the cleavage each clip.

As mentioned above, fuzzed lucifer is applied when the matching rate is 70 % or over ( Trados 2010 ) . This indicates that if the fiting rate between the beginning and the TM section is less than 70 % , TM will non return any interlingual rendition ( Trados 2010 ) . Therefore, if preferring more or less than 70 % duplicate customise of the fuzzed matching rate should be required.

Comparison of characteristic between Wordfast and Trados TM

With the avobe description as background, the characteristic of Wordfast and Trados TM will be compared and assessed.

First of all, in footings of utilizing TM in othe tranlation tools, both Wordfast and Trados can import/ export TM database by change overing the file type into the acceptable format for several TM. For illustration, Wordfast TM is stored in txt. format, while Trados TM is stored in sdltm. format. If change overing Trados TM to Wardfast, it is necessary to export to a tmx.file. Then open it with MS Word and unfastened Wordfast, so choose it as TM. Likewise, Wordfast besides can export its TM by change overing TM into tmx.format, unfastened Trados, making new empty TM and import the txt.file.

Second, although making or opening Wordfast TM is about every bit simple as that of Trados, Trados TM is enriched with assorted optional maps, such as Enable character-based harmony hunt and fuzzed lucifer threshold, compared with Wordfast.

However, when compareing the beginning section with mark section for translaiton, Wordfast seems to be more utile than Trados. In wordfast, the section is highlighted with grey colour and it is non allowed to leap sentences till snap the icon which represent to confirmation each clip. By contrast, Trados does non hold any specific maps which privent from traveling to the following section. As a consequence, jumping section sometimes occur in Trados. Since by and large interlingual rendition undertaking have a inclination to demand for high-velocity and quality, transcribers are frequently forced to work long hours a twenty-four hours. This will ensue in a higher rate of interlingual rendition escape.

Finally, while Wordfast can non let a user to corroborate the translated text layout during interlingual rendition, Trados can expose the finished interlingual rendition within the edditing window. Therefore, the TM user can available to corroborate the translated text layout even during interlingual rendition. This show map of Trados might be effectual to clip economy, because the mistranslations or text layout and presentation can be recognized easy and interpreting and modifying can be available at the same time in the redaction window.

Decision

Although Wordfast and Trados portion certain simiralities in those operational maps such as the handiness of importing/ exporting TM, some virtue and demerit of several TM were besides recognized. It is hard to urge which is more first-class CAT tool, bacause the detarmination of virtue and demerit is affected by the state of affairs. In the instance of the monolithic interlingual rendition squad undertaking, Trados may be more effectual than Wordfast due to a assortment of optional map. On the contrary, if interpreting comparatively simple and short text, Wordfast may be convenience due to its simpleness of plan constellation procedure. Therfore, it might be important to analyze which CAT tool is suited for the interlingual rendition text or undertaking.