Real-Time Computer-Based Translation in Iraq

[TheBORG] writes "The U.S. military has been testing software on laptops that translate English to Arabic and Arabic to English to have conversations with Iraqis without the need to have a Arabic linguist on hand. 'This year the military's Joint Forces Command has been testing laptops with such software in Iraq. When someone speaks into a microphone attached to the computer, the machine translates it into Arabic and reads that translation aloud over the PC's speakers. The software then translates the Arabic speaker's response and utters it in English.'" (See this related story from last year about this daunting machine-translation task.)

Re:Great Idea

[badmammajamma]

The troops learn simple, common phrases in arabic but that's it. If you actually expect them to learn to speak or read it fluently, then you're expectations are completely unrealistic. Your argument might have some actual bite instead of weak flaimbaitness if you made such a comment about the leadership of the country that sends the troops there in the first place.

May I be the first to say

[snuf23]

My hovercraft is full of eels.

I used to work for a translation company and I've seen how much confusion can arise from even human translation, it makes me wonder really how prone to error this will be.

Re:Big worry

[CHESTER COPPERPOT]

Good point. And like the article states ... it hasn't been tested in a real setting yet. How's it going to go translating a screaming, aggressive arabic speaker? What about a stressed out, crying arabic speaker that has just had his family shot and/or blown up? Sounds like just another technological band aid to something that is better off solved with investing in real linguists.

I speak Arabic

[Plutonite]

And you are right of course. This is more difficult than text-based translation, and will definitely not work. Last thing we need is more misunderstanding between our troops and the people over there.

They'll have to learn the hard way.

The only people ...

[Woldry]

... who think that computers are anywhere near ready to do realistic translation are people who have no concept whatsoever how complex human language really is. We will never have a working, reliable computer translation while we are still unable to fully explain or describe the rules of our own languages. Language is remarkably fluid and idiosyncratic, and the rules change not only from language to language, and from dialect to dialect within each language, but from individual to individual, and from utterance to utterance with each individual. So far, we have yet to invent a computer complex enough for the pattern-recognition skills necessary even to parse a majority of sentences correctly, much less decode them and then reconstruct them in a different language altogether.

None of this is to say that we can't ever do it, or that we shouldn't attempt. But the people who think it's possible with today's computer technology really don't understand the complexity of the problem.

Re:Big worry

[lawpoop]

Yeah, sounds like more failure-prone technological solutions to the war on terror, like gait recognition, face recognition, headline scanning, which all are failure-prone, technological solutions to a human problem. What we really need is people skills, like actual fluent translators, experts with experience, covert agents, and inside guys.

Hmm, great idea..

[necro2607]

OK, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who just thought of the inane results of translating things back and forth with Babel Fish [altavista.com] .... This better be some DAMN good translation software.

I can just imagine the "limitation of liability" portion of the end-use agreement from the company that developed the translation software...

Even worse, what happens when some on-the-edge person pulls out a hidden weapon and injures/kills a soldier (or whoever) because of incorrect translation? Oh, is this just part of the "risk of the business"? ...

Re:Great Idea

[iogan]

The troops learn simple, common phrases in arabic but that's it. If you actually expect them to learn to speak or read it fluently, then you're expectations are completely unrealistic.

Why is that exactly, though? Some of them must have been there for years by now, how is it they have been completely unable to learn the language?

I remember the same thing happening while I was teaching English in Prague, 99 percent of the americans there simply couldn't learn czech, while a good 80-85 percent of the rest of us did. I spoke better czech after about 3-4 months than most of my american friends, regardless of how long they'd been there. Never mind how well the russians did, most of whom picked it up in weeks or at most a few months (their language obviously being much more similar, but still)

Being an american who spoke the local language was in fact considered extraordinary, and usually these people would be very well known in the expat community.

I have a feeling the soldiers would be more welcome and more accepted by the locals if they at least made a token effort to learn a little bit of the language and try to understand a little bit about local culture and values. Like, you know, read a few books published by iraqis for instance.

Re:Computer: AL YOUR QAEDA ARE BELONG TO US

[pluther]

Even stranger, Iraq, like most middle-eastern countries, doesn't actually use Arabic numbers themselves.

They use Persian numbers.

Re:Great Idea

[Surasanji]

I had the privledge of talking to some American soldiers in Eliat, Israel. And it seemed to me they were in a similar position to the IDF, when it came to speakers of Arabian. Most of the IDF is taught a basic smattering of Arabic, phrases like 'Stop or I'll shoot', 'Please go the other way.', and 'You're under arrest'. And the majority don't speak Arabic, they speak Hebrew. If you're not in a border patrol, you may not have a speaker of Arabic with you. Even more so if you're not in an area such as Gaza, The West Bank, Or near the Lebonese/Syrian Border: Areas where the need to speak Arabic are much higher then in Eliat, at the southern tip of the country. My point is: Can you expect Americans, who more then likely do not interact with Arabian people, to learn anything more then a few phrases? No. Israeli's who are exposed to far more Arabic don't, and Hebrew is full of cognates from Arabic even. Even after years of exposure to a language- if you primarily only speak English, that's all you'll pick up. As for Arabian culture and values, its a bit odd in general: But most culture and values mean absolutly dick in a war-time situation. The siege mentaility begins to pervade everything they do. Personally, I have the feeling that most Iraqis are feeling more like the American's are invaders and occupiers then a liberation force. And most people won't invite their local invader to tea.

Re:Great Idea

[Jimbookis]

A stint in Afghanistan will only give you a leg up in Pashtu and Dari. Arabs are as foreign as the NATO troops in Afghanistan. It probably all sounds like "durka durka durka" to Mr Ignorant Anonymous Coward.

Re:I never thought before I spoke before...

[cluckshot]

The mechanistic translation of Arabic into English will further blind US troups to the social and other conditions in Iraq. They will get back the techical translation but none of the meaning of the speakers. As such the failure to have good translators will be a serious problem. I suppose the best example of this is in a silly film "Mars Attacks". "Don't Panic, We are your friends." ---> Time to start panic.

Re:I never thought before I spoke before...

[smittyoneeach]

Your assertion that US troops aren't going to bother to learn anything whatsoever about Iraq may hold true for a small minority.
However, the gadget will likely have a catalytic effect: given something that can ease some of the basic communication challenges, the bulk of the troops will likely become somewhat conversational rather quickly.
I base my remark on personal experiences of the US Navy in Japan and the Philippines--I wouldn't expect Iraq to be substantially different.
Your point about the need for good translators is not without merit, but the pessimistic tone elicits a yawn, sir.

Re:An example

[Benzido]

The French example you give is a good example of why it fails.

French is gendered, so if a table dies, you go 'she died', not 'it dies'.

When you back-translate this to English, it would be wrong to translate 'elle est morte' to 'she's dead', since this out-of-context sentence in French could easily refer to a table. In english, we call tables 'it', so the translator goes for 'it died' on the basis that 'elle est morte' is more likely to be referring to a neuter-gendered noun.

Machine translation (in fact, ANY translation) can never succeed in the absence of context, for exactly this kind of reason - a sentence might be necessarily ambiguous in one language, but necessarily specific in another.