Lost in translation

Some years ago, so the story goes, a Russian linguist at the United Nations was translating a speech given by an American speaker.

The speaker made an oblique reference to Shakespeare, which the linguist, a well-read chappie, recognised. He also realised it would have been hard to translate into Russian and, that at a time of tension between Russia and Great Britain, the Russian delegate may not have wanted to have Shakespeare wagged in his face — something the American speaker may not have realised.

The linguist drew upon his vast wealth of literary and cultural knowledge, and substituted an equivalent quotation from Pushkin — maintaining the speaker’s meaning without unintentionally heightening international tensions.

I told you that story so I could tell you this: IBM is donating 1000 Multi-lingual Automatic Speech TranslatOR (MASTOR) devices to aid humanitarian efforts in Iraq, and 10,000 copies of MASTOR software. IBM says this is “to support better communication in Iraq by augmenting human translators and helping improve the safety of US and coalition personnel, citizens and staff of non-governmental aid organisations”. Are you as concerned as I am?

Language has great power, beyond mere communication. As the UN translator (mentioned above) recognised, a quote from Shakespeare can heighten diplomatic tensions between nations. Does MASTOR recognise this? Does MASTOR recognise quotes from Shakespeare and translate them into Pushkin?

My computer has trouble recognising that “Britney Spears wants you badly” isn’t likely to be an email I want to read. When I tell it I want to shut down, it insists on asking me “Are you sure you want to shut down?” as if I’m a fool who might have embarked on a course of action blissfully ignorant of its potential consequences. Yes, dammit, I want to shut down!

According to the press release, MASTOR can recognise and translate more than 50,000 English words and 100,000 Arabic words, “allowing users to converse naturally”. It also has a picture of someone speaking into what appears to be a little microphone. All of this leads me to suspect that it uses — gulp — voice recognition.

I’ve told you before what I think of voice recognition. It’s like Santa: fantastic, but doesn’t exist. Anyone who’s tried to call a cab in Sydney (“Newtown” “did you say ‘Blacktown?”) knows how reliable voice recognition can be. In a war zone, the consequences of such miscommunication can be even more dire (for non-Sydneysiders, Newtown and Blacktown are nowhere near each other).

I can picture it now. “Stop where you are, don’t advance any further or I will be forced to open fire.” “Did you say “something or other in Arabic?” “Agh! I have no idea if that’s what I said! No, I don’t want to buy carpets! How do you turn this thing off?” Now, how would Pushkin have said that?

matthew powell software