COMPARATIVE STUDY ON CHATGPT VS GOOGLE TRANSLATE IN INDONESIAN-ENGLISH OF BILINGUAL DESCRIPTION OF HISTORICAL HERITAGE AT MUSEUM NEGERI NUSA TENGGARA BARAT
Abstract
Cultural difference pose challenges for machine translation as it’s challenging to find equivalent words to convey cultural concepts. Therefore, this research conducted to find out the accuracy level of two popular machine translation namely Chat-GPT and Google Translate in translating Culture-specific Items from the bilingual description of historical heritage at Museum Negeri Nusa Tenggara Barat. Using HTER by Snover (2006), researcher try to find the level of accuracy of the MT. After long analysis of the accuracy of MT namely Chat-GPT and GT using the HTER theory by Snover, researcher found that between Chat-GPT and GT almost play accurate with the presentation 99.94% and 99.93% while the error rate for Chat-GPT is 0.06% while GT is 0.07%. Furthermore, the quality index (TQI) of the MTs are in the same range, which is EXCELLENT.
References
Çimke, S., & Yıldırım Gürkan, D. (2021). Determination of interest in vitamin use during COVID-19 pandemic using Google Trends data: Infodemiology study. Nutrition, 85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2020.111138
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. . SAGE Publications.
George, M. W. (2008). The elements of library research: What every student needs to know. In The Elements of Library Research: What Every Student Needs to Know. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.46-4758
Jiao, W., Wang, W., Huang, J., Wang, X., & Tu, Z. (2023). Is ChatGPT A Good Translator? Yes With GPT-4 As The Engine. http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.08745
Khaleghi Zavareh, N. (2021). Translation of Culture-Specific Items from English into Persian: A Case Study of The Secret Garden. International Journal of Language and Translation Research Summer, 2021(3), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.12906/978389966737_002
Peng, K., Ding, L., Zhong, Q., Shen, L., Liu, X., Zhang, M., Ouyang, Y., & Tao, D. (2023). Towards Making the Most of ChatGPT for Machine Translation. http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.13780
Pudjiati, D., Lustyantie, N., Iskandar, I., & Fitria, T. N. (2022). Post-Editing of Machine Translation: Creating a Better Translation of Cultural Specific Terms. Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature, 17(1). https://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/LC/article/view/38474
Sipayung, K. T. (2021). Translation Shifts on Reference by Machine Translation in Descriptive Text. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.21462/ijefl.v6i1.362
Snover, M., Dorr, B., Schwartz, R., Micciulla, L., & Makhoul, J. (2006). A study of translation edit rate with targeted human annotation. AMTA 2006 - Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation of the Americas: Visions for the Future of Machine Translation.
Sukmadinata. (2009). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan (5th ed.). Remaja Posda Karya.
Sumiati, Baharuddin, & Saputra, A. (2022). The Analysis of Google Translate Accuracy in Translating Procedural and Narrative Text. Journal of English Education Forum (JEEF), 2(1).
Teilanyo, D. I. (2007). Figurative language in translation: A study of J.P. Clark’s the ozidi saga. Meta, 52(2). https://doi.org/10.7202/016073ar
Yamada, M. (2019). The impact of Google Neural Machine Translation on Post-editing by student translators. In The Journal of Specialised Translation Issue.
