Artificial Intelligence in Academic Translation: A Comparative Study of Large Language Models and Google Translate

Mohammed Ali Mohsen

32 citations0/0 files storedPSYCHOLINGUISTICS

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Translation Studies and Practices Natural Language Processing Techniques Topic Modeling

Abstract

Purpose. The advent of Large Language Model (LLM), a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model, in November 2022 has had a profound impact on various domains, including the field of translation studies. This motivated this study to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness and precision of machine translation, represented by Google Translate (GT), in comparison to Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically ChatGPT 3.5 and 4, when translating academic abstracts bidirectionally between English and Arabic. Methods. Employing a mixed-design approach, this study utilizes a corpus comprising 20 abstracts sourced from peer-reviewed journals indexed in the Clarivate Web of Science, specifically the Journal of Arabic Literature and Al-Istihlal Journal. The abstracts are equally divided to represent both English-Arabic and Arabic-English translation directionality. The study’s design is rooted in a comprehensive evaluation rubric adapted from Hurtado Albir and Taylor (2015), focusing on semantic integrity, syntactic coherence, and technical adequacy. Three independent raters carried out assessments of the translation outputs generated by both GT and LLM models. Results. Results from quantitative and qualitative analyses indicated that LLM tools significantly outperformed MT outputs in both Arabic and English translation directions. Additionally, ChatGPT 4 demonstrated a significant advantage over ChatGPT 3.5 in Arabic-English translation, while no statistically significant difference was observed in the English-Arabic translation directionality. Qualitative analysis findings indicated that AI tools exhibited the capacity to comprehend contextual nuances, recognize city names, and adapt to the target language's style. Conversely, GT displayed limitations in handling specific contextual aspects and often provided literal translations for certain terms.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 32 citations exist upstream.

References

2023Opinion Paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy 2023Education in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): Understanding the Potential Benefits of ChatGPT in Promoting Teaching and Learning 2023ChatGPT: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope 2006Translation and Technology 2015The Acquisition of Translation Competence. Competences, Tasks, and Assessment in Translator Training 2023ChatGPT Perpetuates Gender Bias in Machine Translation and Ignores Non-Gendered Pronouns: Findings across Bengali and Five other Low-Resource Languages 2023ChatGPT for Arabic-English Translation: Evaluating the Accuracy

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.