Mark，
我來分享我個人的經驗。我合作過的團隊使用逐詞對照工具（Interlinearizer）來製作回譯。它確實會產生非常直譯的翻譯，這帶有當地語言語法的一些風味。當他們核准註釋後，這些註釋會被匯出到回譯本身。如果回譯不夠易懂，他們隨時可以進去調整。這個整個過程對於能夠理解非常直譯的翻譯，或者對他們所處理語言的語法/結構已有一定熟悉度的顧問來說，運作得非常好。
如果將使用回譯的顧問在理解這種更直譯的風格上會有困難，那麼手動回譯可能更好。如果母語和回譯語言差異太大，逐詞對照工具可能永遠無法產生非常易讀的內容，手動回譯可能更好。
逐詞對照工具（Interlinearizer）：通常更快，在翻譯的每個階段都更容易更新。可能更好地反映原文的結構或語法。可能不夠清晰或自然，無法解決顧問的疑慮。
手動回譯：產生更自然的結果，可能更好地傳達文本將如何被理解。可能掩蓋結構問題或隱藏錯誤（譯者可以寫他們認為應該說的話，而不是他們實際寫下的話）。
我認為主要的限制在於誰將使用回譯，以及它需要多麼清晰。如果使用它的顧問能夠理解逐詞對照回譯中那種 somewhat literal（相當直譯）的風格，並且回譯不需要非常清晰/自然，那麼逐詞對照工具是一個很好的選擇。如果顧問需要更清晰/自然的翻譯，或者回譯有其他用途需要高品質，那麼手動回譯可能更好。
另一個限制。逐詞對照工具對於詞彙中形態素（morphemes）極少的語言特別有效。例如，對於黏著語（aglutinating languages），詞彙包含許多形態素，逐詞對照需要多做一些工作。但對於詞彙中形態素較少的語言，Paratext 可以在極少額外輸入的情況下，非常準確地推測正確的註釋。我處理的班圖語（Bantu languages）由於時態/體貌、主語、賓語等而有許多變體。所有這些變化意味著 Paratext 需要更長的時間來為所有可能的組合推測良好的註釋。但即便如此，逐詞對照工具在減少我們花在回譯上的時間方面仍然非常有用。
Mark,
I’ll share my own experience. The teams I have worked with use the Interlinearizer to produce their back translations. It does produce a very literal translation, which carries with it some of the flavor of the grammar of the local language. When they approve the glosses, they’re exported to the back translation itself. They can always go in and tweak that back translation if it isn’t understandable. This whole process works great for consultants who are able to understand a very literal translation, or who already have some familiarity with the grammar/structure of the languages they’re working with.
If the consultants who will use the back translation will struggle to understand that more literal style, then a manual back translation could be better. If the mother tongue language and the back translation language are too dissimilar, then the Interlinearizer may never produce something very readable, and a manual back translation might be better.
Interlinearizer: Generally quicker, easier to update at each stage of translation. May better reflect the structure or grammar of the original text. May not be clear or natural enough to resolve a consultant’s concerns.
Manual Back Translation: Produces a more natural sounding result, may better convey how the text will be understood. May conceal structural issues or may hide mistakes (the translator can write what they think it should say rather than what they’ve actually written).
I think the main restraints then, will be on who will use the back translation and how clear it needs to be. If the consultants using it will can understand the somewhat literal style of an Interlinearized back translation, and if the back translation does not need to be very clear/natural, then the Interlinearizer is a great choice. If the consultants require a more clear/natural translation, or if the back translation will have other uses that require it to be high quality, then a manual back translation could be better.
One other constraint. The Interlinearizer will work especially well for languages with words with minimal morphemes. For example, with aglutinating languages, where words have many morphemes, the Interlinear requires a bit more work. But for languages where words have few morphemes, Paratext can get very good at guessing correct glosses with minimal extra input. The Bantu languages I work with have many variants due to tense/aspect, subject, object, etc. All of that variation means that Paratext takes longer to guess good glosses for every possible combination. But even so, the Interlinearizer is very helpful in reducing the time we spend working on back translation.
機器翻譯自 English
