Theory and Practice of Translation

Seminar 8.

MACHINE AND COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSLATION

1. What is direct or icon machine translation method?

2. What is transfer-based machine translation method?

3. What is pivot-language based machine translation method?

4. What are artificial intelligence and statistical machine translation methods?

5. What is computer-aided translation? How is it used in human trans­lation?

EXERCISES

Ex. 1. Analyse the mistakes of machine translation of the text given below. Suggest translation rules or information required for correct translation.

THE REAL BUSH: TOUGH GUY OR SQUISHY MODERATE?

WASHINGTON - How President Bush responds to last week's ter­rorist attacks on America will not only define him for the rest of his term in office, it will also give us an unfiltered look into his soul.

He does not have to cultivate public support. Polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans would back even a decision to go to war. Congress, furthermore, is eager to give him whatever he wants. Yet, despite this monolithic support, it's uncertain how the president will respond. Will he be aggressive, squishy or somewhere in-between?

During his first eight months in office, Bush inevitably took the moderate path. The conservative Republican base enabled him to win the White House, but once in the Oval Office, he staffed his administration with moderate Republicans like Andrew H. Card Jr., Colin L. Powell and Christine Todd Whitman.

He was no less flexible on his agenda. Bush initially insisted on a non-negotiable $1.6-trillion tax cut, then negotiated with Democrats and reduced it to $1.3 trillion. During the presidential campaign, he came out strongly against embryonic stem-cell research, but when decision time

came, he ran to the center, endorsing limited research on existing stem-cell lines. After setting himself four-square against campaign-finance re­form last year, he indicated this summer that he might sign it into law if such legislation ever made it to his desk.

All of which paints a picture of Bush as a man who strikes tough-looking poses, then carefully uses his political leverage to bring about moderate compromises. He may have conservative principles, but none have proved to be unyielding.

True, before Tuesday's lethal attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the president had to govern as a normal politician, always keeping one eye on his agenda and the other on the ephemeral political calculus that rules Washington. Today, however, Bush is a war-time president, and he is perhaps the only one whose actions will be com­pletely unbound by political considerations. Indeed, it is difficult to con­jure a scenario in which Americans would fault the president for being too assertive. He has carte blanche to do whatever his conscience dic­tates. So, how will he use it?

Last Tuesday, it seemed that Bush might rely on international law to even the score. In his first address to the nation after the attacks, he called the resulting death and devastation a «national tragedy,» promis­ing only that he would «conduct a full-scale investigation to hunt down and to find those folks who committed this act.» His second address went no further, though by his third speech he referred to the day's «acts of terror.» It seemed as if the president would be satisfied to catch the terrorists responsible and extradite them to The Hague for trial. In a cu­rious turn of events, the leaders of Germany and France issued state­ments that were much more pointed. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder called the attacks «a declaration of war against the civilized world,» while President Jacques Chirac said «we must fight terrorism by all means.»

Encouragingly, Bush's tone changed Wednesday, and he seemed headed toward a stronger course of action than international law. His «acts of terror» turned into «acts of war.» He said that «The United States of America will use all our resources to conquer this enemy.» He came close to assuring the country that a military response would even­tually come because, presumably, an act of war against the United States cannot stand unanswered. On Friday, he went further still, vowing to «rid the world of evil.»

Still, the question of what sort of response Bush will decide on is very much open. Former President Bill Clinton spent a few days investi­gating the terrorist bombings of the two U.S. embassies in Africa, then ordered up an attack of cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs on what was believed to be Osama bin Laden's compound in Afghanistan and on Sudan. It was the kind of retaliation that carried as little risk as possible for U.S. military personnel. Bush could similarly opt for surgical strikes, but extend them for a period of weeks. He could launch merely a rhe­torical war on terrorism, like the war on poverty or the war on drugs.

Or, the president could lead us into a real war. He is no longer a politician. He is the war-time leader of a great nation. He knows that both the American public, the country's political leadership and most of the civilized world will stand beside him no matter what he does, be it legal prosecution, surgical strikes or war. It will take great intestinal forti­tude for the president to take a calm measure of events, declare war on nations that harbor our terrorist enemies and possibly deploy U.S. troops on foreign soil.

George W. Bush's words are increasingly tough. He has resolved to win the «first war of the 21st century.» Will his corresponding deeds fol­low?

Date: 2016-01-14; view: 1117