That was the last straw, we need more: Are Translation Systems Sensitive to Disambiguating Context?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The translation of ambiguous text presents a challenge for translation systems, as it requires using the surrounding context to disambiguate the intended meaning as much as possible. While prior work has studied ambiguities that result from different grammatical features of the source and target language, we study semantic ambiguities that exist in the source (English in this work) itself. In particular, we focus on idioms that are open to both literal and figurative interpretations (e.g., goose egg), and collect TIDE, a dataset of 512 pairs of English sentences containing idioms with disambiguating context such that one is literal (it laid a goose egg) and another is figurative (they scored a goose egg, as in a score of zero). In experiments, we compare MT-specific models and language models for (i) their preference when given an ambiguous subsentence, (ii) their sensitivity to disambiguating context, and (iii) the performance disparity between figurative and literal source sentences. We find that current MT models consistently translate English idioms literally, even when the context suggests a figurative interpretation. On the other hand, LMs are far more context-aware, although there remain disparities across target languages. Our findings underline the potential of LMs as a strong backbone for context-aware translation.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Oct 2023.
Builds on
24 of 41 references.
References · 24
- 2019Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scalecited by 3,935
- 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,203
- 2020AmbigQA: Answering Ambiguous Open-domain Questionscited by 390
- 2023How Good Are GPT Models at Machine Translation? A Comprehensive Evaluationcited by 348
- 2021Word Alignment by Fine-tuning Embeddings on Parallel Corporacited by 186
- 2020The Tatoeba Translation Challenge -- Realistic Data Sets for Low Resource and Multilingual MTcited by 128
- 2023We're Afraid Language Models Aren't Modeling Ambiguitycited by 126
- 2018Assessing Gender Bias in Machine Translation -- A Case Study with Google Translatecited by 121
- 2021Gender Bias in Machine Translationcited by 117
- 2017Evaluating Discourse Phenomena in Neural Machine Translationcited by 87
- 2022FLUTE: Figurative Language Understanding through Textual Explanationscited by 79
- 2022BERTScore is Unfair: On Social Bias in Language Model-Based Metrics for Text Generationcited by 48
12 more
- 2023Multi-lingual and Multi-cultural Figurative Language Understandingcited by 47
- 2019Context-Aware Monolingual Repair for Neural Machine Translationcited by 41
- 2021When Does Translation Require Context? A Data-driven, Multilingual Explorationcited by 36
- 2018Examining the Tip of the Iceberg: A Data Set for Idiom Translationcited by 34
- 2021Bidimensional Leaderboards: Generate and Evaluate Language Hand in Handcited by 32
- 2023Do GPTs Produce Less Literal Translations?cited by 30
- 2020Automatically Identifying Gender Issues in Machine Translation using Perturbationscited by 28
- 2020EPIE Dataset: A Corpus For Possible Idiomatic Expressionscited by 24
- 2021Do Context-Aware Translation Models Pay the Right Attention?cited by 21
- 2022Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road? Rephrasing and Analyzing Ambiguous Questions in VQAcited by 13
- 2020Pick a Fight or Bite your Tongue: Investigation of Gender Differences in Idiomatic Language Usagecited by 6
- 2017Paying Attention to Multi-Word Expressions in Neural Machine Translationcited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
3 papers.