Quality in translations depends on the correct use of specialized terms, which can make the translation easier to understand as well as reduce the required time and costs for the translation (Lommel, 2007). Consistent use of terminology is important, and should be taken into account during quality checks of for example translated documentation (Esselink, 2000). Today, several commercial programs have functions for automatic quality checking of terminology. The aim of this study is to evaluate such functions since no earlier major study of this has been found.
To get some insight into quality checking in practice, two qualitative interviews were initially carried out with individuals involved in this at a translation agency. The results were compared to current theories in the subject field and revealed a general agreement with for example the recommendations of Bass (2006).
The evaluations started with an examination of the recall for a genuine terminology database compared to subjectively marked terms in a test corpus based on an authentic translation memory. The examination however revealed a relatively low recall. To increase the recall the terminology database was modified, it was for example extended with longer terms from the test corpus.
After that, the function for checking terminology in four different commercial programs was run on the test corpus using the modified terminology database. Finally, the test corpus was also modified, by planting out a number of errors to produce a more idealized evaluation. The results from the programs, in the form of alarms for potential errors, were categorized and judged as true or false alarms. This constitutes a base for measures of precision of the checks, and in the last evaluation also of their recall.
The evaluations showed that for terminology in translations of English to Swedish, it was advantageous to match terms from the terminology database using partial matching of words in the source and target segments of the translation. In that way, terms with different inflected forms could be matched without support for languagespecific morphology. A cause of many problems in the matching process was the form of the entries in the terminology database, which were more suited for being read by human translators than by a machine.
Recommendations regarding the introduction of tools for automatic checking of terminology were formulated, based on the results from the interviews and evaluations. Due to factors of uncertainty in the automatic checking, a manual review of its results is motivated. By running the check on a sample that has already been manually checked in other aspects, a reasonable number of results to manually review can be obtained. The quality of the terminology database is crucial for its recall on translations, and in the long run also for the value of using it for automatic checking.