Community-based construction of draft and ﬁnal translation corpus
through a translation hosting site Minna no Hon’yaku (MNH)
Takeshi Abekawa† , Masao Utiyama‡ , Eiichiro Sumita‡ and Kyo Kageura]†

National Institute of Informatics
National Institute of Information and Communication Technology]
University of Tokyo†‡
abekawa@nii.ac.jp, {utiyama,eiichiro.sumita}@nict.go.jp, ] kyo@p.u-tokyo.ac.jp‡

Abstract
In this paper we report a way of constructing a translation corpus that contains not only source and target texts, but draft and ﬁnal
versions of target texts, through the translation hosting site Minna no Hon’yaku (MNH). We made MNH publicly available on April
2009. Since then, more than 1,000 users have registered and over 3,500 documents have been translated, as of February 2010, fromEnglish to Japanese and from Japanese to English. MNH provides an integrated translation-aid environment, QRedit, which enablestranslators to look up high-quality dictionaries and Wikipedia as well as to search Google seamlessly. As MNH keeps translation logs, a
corpus consisting of source texts, draft translations in several versions, and ﬁnal translations is constructed naturally through MNH. This
corpus can be used for self-learning by inexperienced translators on MNH, and potentially for improving machine translation.

1. Introduction
Recently, the importance of not only bilingual parallel corpora but also monolingual parallel corpora has been recognised more and more strongly (Barzilay and McKeown,
2001; Tono, 2009). A corpus that contains both draft and ﬁnal translations made by humans, together with their source
texts is at once a bilingual and monolingual parallel corpus. This type of corpus is especially useful and important
for two reasons. First, it can be used for the training of
inexperienced translators. For instance, the MeLLANGE
corpus, which contains different versions of translation, iswell known for its usefulness in translator training (MeLLANGE, 2009). The use of such corpora in translator training is becoming all the more important as we are witnessing
the growth in the number of translations by volunteer translators. For instance, many NGOs and NPOs depend heavily
on volunteer translators to meet their translation needs, andthe training of these volunteer translators remains an arduous task for them. If corpora consisting of draft and ﬁnal
translations become widely available, self-training of translators will be promoted. Secondly, this type of corpus canprovide a useful information for improving the performanceof machine translation and translation-aid systems. With
these applications in mind, the authors have been constructing a corpus consisting of source texts, their draft translations, and the ﬁnal translations (henceforth “SDF corpus”
for succinctness) with detailed tags for modiﬁcation patterns (Abekawa and Kageura, 2008a).
There are, however, several problems in constructing andmaking use of such a corpus: (i) the data are not readily available, because human translators in general are reluctant to make draft translations accessible, even when
they keep them (a reasonable amount of data should be obtained, part of which should preferably be tagged, for it to
be useful for improving NLP technologies (Abekawa andKageura, 2008b)); (ii) the mechanisms that enable humantranslators to make use of these translations are not readily available, so translators do not recognise the beneﬁt ofmaking draft and ﬁnal translations available. In order tosolve these problems, at least partially, we are taking advantage of the translation hosting site Minna no Hon’yaku(MNH), which has been publicly available since April 2009at http://trans-aid.jp/. This paper introduces
how an SDF corpus is constructed on MNH and how it isused by online volunteer translators on MNH. It also provides the basic statistics of the current data in the SDF corpus accumulated on MNH. Throughout this paper, we focus on English to Japanese translation. This is because, although MNH is essentially multilingual (some users workon Japanese to English translations, and we are planning toprovide resources for English to Chinese, Chinese to English, Japanese to Chinese and Chinese to Japanese translations within 2010), as of February 2010 the majority oftranslations are made from English to Japanese.

2. Minna no Hon’yaku (MNH)
Minna no Hon’yaku (MNH) is an online translation hosting site (Figure 1), which provide the following functions(Utiyama, et. al., 2009):
1. Anybody can register with MNH anonymously. The
registered user is provided with her/his own personal
space for managing translation documents.
2. The registered users can publish their translations on
the MNH site, in the same manner as a communitybased news site, if copyright of the original text permits.
3. A range of social networking functions is provided on
MNH, including message exchange, question and answer, translation request submission, communication
by noticeboard, and social tagging.
4. Terminology and translation memory management
functions, including individual registration of terms,
batch upload of terminologies, registration of paralleltexts.

Figure 1. The MNH main page

Figure 2. The integrated translation-aid editor environment QRedit
5. A series of search functions is provided, including thesearch of translation texts by content words or by tags,of translated text pairs (TM), of registered terms, ofusers, and of questions.
What makes MNH especially important and attractive foronline translators is its built-in integrated translation-aid editor environment, QRedit (Abekawa and Kageura, 2007a;
Abekawa and Kageura, 2007b). QRedit is a two-pane editor which provides the following functions for online translators (Figure 2):
1. ﬂexible (idiom variations can be looked up) and strat-

iﬁed (important or difﬁcult multi-word elements arehighlighted) lookup and copy-and-paste functions ofdictionaries and terminological resources (Takeuchi,
et. al., 2007), including a high-quality English-toJapanese dictionary widely used by translators (Sanseido, 2001) ;2. seamless connection to Wikipedia bilingual andmonolingual entries, as well as to Google search;
3. function to register term translations in the process oftranslation and their immediate lookup;

4. an easy-to-use and effective interface which enables
users to maintain their rhythm in producing translations.
MNH thus accumulates a translation corpus naturally. At
the time of writing this paper (February 7th, 2010), MNH
has 1,061 registered users (of whom 42 publish their translations on MNH) and 3,301 translated documents (of which
1,720 are published). Some prominent Japanese NGOs,
such as Amnesty International Japan and Democracy Now!
Japan, and translators from civic translation groups suchas the Japanese translation team of GlobalVoices Online
and Translators United for Peace (TUP) are using MNH.
In addition, several university professors use MNH for theirseminar in reading and translating English news in their domains. We shall come back to the statistics in section 5,
when we describe the current status of the SDF corpus on
MNH.

3. Construction of the SDF corpus
3.1. Basic mechanism
The basic mechanism for accumulating draft and ﬁnal
translations is very simple. Translators using MNH savetheir translations to keep the data when they ﬁnish the translation. MNH keeps a log of up to 10 versions of translation for each document. At ﬁrst when we designed themechanism, we only had a single save mode: each time thetranslator saved the translation, it was saved as a new version of translation. After we made MNH publicly available
and users started using the system, however, we noticed an
obvious problem. Translators do not only save their translations to update the translation logs, but they often savethem in the midst of translation to avoid data loss. Some
users save their translations every now and then, and theﬁrst draft translations can be easily lost because the system
keeps only 10 versions, while the translators keep saving
each and every small step in their translation process.
In order to avoid this problem, we introduced two modes
for saving translations in November 2009: ordinary modeand snapshot mode. The translation version saved in theordinary saving mode is overwritten when the translator
saves the new translation. If the translation is saved in
the snapshot mode, the version is kept unless 10 moreversions are newly saved in the snapshot mode. The selection of the mode is straightforward: users can simply
check or uncheck “snapshot” indicated by the camera icon
next to the “save” button when they save the translation in
QRedit. Although users should become conscious of thesaving modes, we found it preferable not only from thepoint of view of keeping due versions but also from thepoint of view of making translators use the SDF corpus fortheir own beneﬁts. Each user can check their translation
logs starting from the very ﬁrst draft translation to the ﬁnal
version, the details of which will be described in section 4.
3.2. Community-based accumulation
MNH can collect not only draft and ﬁnal translations madeby a single translator, but also those made by different translators. MNH has a function that enables users to give permission for other translators registered with MNH to edit

their original translations. Such permission can be openended, or restricted to a particular group of users. Thisfunction is of particular importance for NGOs, NPOs, university classes and other groups involved in group-basedtranslation.
In these translation groups as typically represented byNGOs, it is a normal procedure in translation that a drafttranslation is produced by some inexperienced translatorsand then modiﬁed and ﬁnalised by experienced translators.
Incidentally, the division of labour between a (draft) translator and a reviser is, or should be, common to translation
activities in general, including those carried out by translation companies, as can be from the requirements given in
the EU standard for translation services EN-15308 (Robert,
2008).
Thus if an inexperienced translator gives permission for
editing his/her draft translations to experienced translatorsin the group and the experienced translators revise the translations, the translation logs – which include the draft and ﬁnal versions – made by different translators are kept on theserver. When the draft translator has the original ownership of the document, s/he should give ﬁnal permission for
publication if the translation is to be published. Thus drafttranslators inevitably have to at least see the document if
they wish to publish the translations edited by more than
one translator. The more groups that use MNH for translations, therefore, the more chances there are that draft andﬁnal translations made by different translators are accumulated on MNH as part of the SDF corpus.
The translation group management on MNH tries to strikea balance between openness and security among registeredtranslators. Two steps are needed to activate group editing. First, each user has to register the other users who are
to constitute the group and to deﬁne the group. Then, foreach document which the user wants other translators in thegroup to edit, the user gives them editing permission, which
can be done by choosing the editing status when s/he saves
the translation. Some group users claim this procedure ofdeﬁning a group is cumbersome; we are currently examining the optimal way of providing the function of deﬁning agroup on MNH.

4.

Use of the SDF corpus by humantranslators

The corpus consisting of source texts and different versionsof translations (including draft and ﬁnal) can be used for
self-training by inexperienced translators, as well as offering a basic corpus for improving MT and related technologies (Abekawa and Kageura, 2008b). Though the latter aspect, i.e. to incorporate human expertise in MT, has gained
importance especially recently (Casacuberta, et. al., 2009),
we discuss here the former aspect. To take full advantageof the SDF corpus in improving MT performance, further
steps, including relevant tagging, are expected to be necessary, which we have not yet pursued fully.
The SDF corpus is especially effective for NGOs and othergroups relying on volunteer translators in training inexperienced translators. Many NGOs constantly face the problem
of a dearth of good and/or reliable volunteer translators.
Due to the low retention rate of volunteer translators, theFigure 3. A comparative view of the draft and ﬁnal translations
core, experienced translators become busier, leaving themno time to give advice to inexperienced translators, whichfurther reduces the retention rate – a vicious circle. Thus
mechanisms to enable inexperienced volunteer translators
to train themselves are urgently needed. These mechanisms
should be integrated into the process of translation to which
they contribute as a volunteer; otherwise they cannot maintain enough motivation.
To enable inexperienced translators to self-train and checktheir translations, MNH provides a comparative view modethat displays any two versions of translations kept in the
SDF corpus on MNH. Thus inexperienced translators caneasily check where and how their translations are modiﬁed by experienced translations. Figure 3 shows a comparative view of draft and ﬁnal translations. The differences between two versions are captured by a javascript library google-diff-match-patch provided by Google (Google, 2009). In Figure 3, the parts deleted from the draft translation are indicated in green, with lines overwritten, while theparts added to the modiﬁed translation are indicated in red.
Incidentally, the comparison can be made from the otherside, if the user wishes.
Because MNH supports and facilitates the natural cycle ofcommunity-based translations by providing a translationaid environment for making translations and enabling modiﬁcation of translations, including by other translators, thecomparative view of the SDF corpus provided by MNH
also constitutes a part of the translation process. Afterthe draft translation is modiﬁed by an experienced translator, the inexperienced translator who made the draft can
see which parts have been modiﬁed and in what way, thiswithin the same environment that s/he uses for producing
the draft translations, as though the draft is checked by experienced translators for educational purposes. There are
SNS sites explicitly for language learning, such as Lang8 (Lang-8, 2009). What characterises MNH’s translation
training function through SDF corpus is the fact that it is aside effect of the natural cycle of group-based translations
and constitutes an integrated part of the actual translation
process.

5.

Current state of the SDF corpus on MNH

5.1. Overall statistics
As of February 7, MNH has 1,061 users (of whom 42 users
publish their translations) and 3,301 translations (of which
1,581 are published), as mentioned in section 2. Table 1
shows the bi-monthly statistics of the number of users andthat of translated documents on MNH since April 7, 2009,
when MNH was made public. The number of registeredusers as well as that of documents have steadily increased.
The increase in the number of published documents is fasterthan the increase in all the documents, thus the ratio of published documents increases.
Table 2 shows the number of translations for the numberof versions (up to 10) retained in MNH. Table 3 shows thesame data for published translations. Figure 4 visualises theVersions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Multiple
Total

No. & per centage of documents
Apr. 09
Jun. 09
Aug. 09
Oct. 09
Dec. 09
Feb. 1046 (10.80) 346 (27.75) 611 (34.52) 831 (37.77) 1149 (41.66) 1451 (43.96)
227 (53.29) 347 (27.83) 398 (22.49) 447 (20.32) 527 (19.11) 619 (18.75)
95 (22.30) 222 (17.80) 248 (14.01) 277 (12.59) 312 (11.31) 359 (10.88)
25 (5.87)
86 (6.90) 100 (5.65) 118 (5.36) 135 (4.89) 152 (4.60)
8 (1.88)
57 (4.57)
72 (4.07)
79 (3.59)
88 (3.19) 100 (3.03)
9 (2.11)37 (2.97)
52 (2.94)
57 (2.59)
66 (2.39)
73 (2.21)
4 (0.94)
24 (1.92)
41 (2.32)
50 (2.27)
56 (2.03)
60 (1.82)
2 (0.47)
14 (1.12)
23 (1.30)
28 (1.27)
32 (1.16)
34 (1.03)
2 (0.47)
15 (1.20)
24 (1.36)
29 (1.32)
34 (1.23)
39 (1.18)
8 (1.88)
99 (7.94) 201 (11.36) 284 (12.91) 359 (13.02) 414 (12.54)
380 (89.20) 901 (72.25) 1159 (65.48) 1369 (62.23) 1609 (58.34) 1850 (56.04)
426
1247
1770
2200
2758
3301
Table 2. The number of documents by the number of versions (all)Versions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Multiple
Total

No. & per centage of documents
Apr. 09
Jun. 09
Aug. 09
Oct. 09
Dec. 09
Feb. 1032 (33.68) 214 (48.31) 371 (52.11) 471 (50.70)
656 (52.31)
817 (51.68)
29 (30.53)
81 (18.28) 110 (15.45) 149 (16.04)
214 (17.07)
282 (17.84)
20 (21.05)
71 (16.03)
89 (12.50) 108 (11.63)
133 (10.61)
170 (10.75)
5 (5.26)
23 (5.19)
32 (4.49)
44 (4.74)
53 (4.22)
67 (4.24)
2 (2.11)11 (2.48)
21 (2.95)
25 (2.69)
30 (2.39)
40 (2.53)
2 (2.11)10 (2.26)
15 (2.11)
17 (1.83)
19 (1.51)
23 (1.45)
0 (0.00)
3 (0.68)
8 (1.12)12 (1.29)
16 (1.28)
18 (1.14)
0 (0.00)
2 (0.45)
6 (0.84)
8 (0.86)
10 (0.80)
12 (0.76)
0 (0.00)
3 (0.68)
7 (0.98)
8 (0.86)
10 (0.80)
14 (0.89)
5 (5.26)
25 (5.64)
53 (7.44)
87 (9.36)
113 (9.01)
138 (8.73)
63 (66.32) 229 (51.69) 341 (47.89) 458 (49.30)
598 (47.69)
764 (48.32)
95
443
712
929
1254
1581
Table 3. The number of documents by the number of versions (published)

Date
Users All docs Published docs (%)
Apr. 7, 2009
49426
95 (22.30)
Jun. 7, 2009
545
1247
443 (35.53)
Aug. 7, 2009
666
1770
712 (40.23)
Oct. 7, 2009
867
2200
929 (42.23)
Dec. 7, 2009
9782758
1254 (45.47)
Feb. 7, 2010 1061
3301
1581 (47.90)
Table 1. The growth in the number of documents on MNH
statistics given in Tables 2 and 3 by barplots. We can regard
the number of documents that have more than two versions
as constituting the SDF corpus – or perhaps better still – the“raw” SDF corpus.
From Tables 2 and 3 and Figure 4, we can observe the following tendencies in the development of the SDF corpus:
1. As can be seen from the line “Multiple” in Table 2 aswell as from the top left panel of Figure 4, the numberof translations with more than two versions is steadily
increasing.
2. As can be seen from the line “Multiple” in Table 3
as well as from the top right panel of Figure 4, thenumber of published translations – which can be moresafely regarded as “complete” translations – with morethan two versions is also steadily increasing.

3. The ratio of translations with more than two versions
is in decrease over time, and it seems to be still decreasing within the time span of the data.
4. The ratio of published translations with more than two
versions decreased from April to August 2009, thenseems to have converged to slightly below 50 per cent.
5. The ratio of published translations with more than two
versions is lower than that of all the translations withmore than two versions. This in fact is contrary to our
initial expectation, because we expected that the published translations would be reviewed carefully. One
reason for this may be that those who publish translations are relatively experienced, and they aim at distributing information in a timely manner rather thanmaking sophisticated translations. This needs further
investigation.
6. There are a good number of translations with 10 versions, the ratio of which is comparable to that oftranslations with three versions. However, the ratio
is recently in decline, most probably because we introduced two saving mode in November 2009. Thatthe ratio of translations with 10 versions in publishedtranslations is consistently lower than that of all thetranslations may reﬂect the fact that translators areFigure 4. The number and ratio of documents for the number of versions
more conscious of the translation versions for published translations. This, again, needs further study.
5.2. Documents edited by multiple translators
Table 4 shows the status of users who are involved in grouptranslations and documents. Percentages are calculated forthe corresponding ﬁgures given in Table 1. We witness ageneral growth in the number of users involved in grouptranslation and the number of documents edited by morethan one translator. The ratio is also on the increase in general.
Table 5 shows the statistics for the documents on MNH
which are edited by more than one translator. Table 6 shows
the statistics for the published documents on MNH which
are edited by more than one translator. Note that the number of documents for one log is by deﬁnition zero, so it isomitted from the Tables. Figure 5 visualises the information in Tables 5 and 6. Although the number of documents
edited by multiple users is still small, it is steadily increasing.
The following characteristics can be pointed out.
1. The number of documents translated by more than one
translator is steadily increasing, although the pace of
the increase is not stable.
2. The number of published documents with two versions is zero, reﬂecting the mechanism given by MNH
in which the document owner, most probably the drafttranslator, needs to give permission for publication to
the document at the ﬁnal stage (see 3.2).

Documents
Date
Users (%)
All (%)
Published (%)
Apr. 7, 2009
2 (4.08)1 (0.23)
1 (1.05)
Jun. 7, 200911 (2.02)
11 (0.88)
3 (0.68)
Aug. 7, 200924 (3.60)
35 (1.98)
11 (1.54)
Oct. 7, 200926 (3.00)
54 (2.45)
14 (1.51)
Dec. 7, 200952 (5.32)
94 (3.41)
38 (3.03)
Feb. 7, 201055 (5.18) 110 (3.33)
48 (3.04)
Table 4. The growth in the number of documents edited bymore than one user on MNH
3. Compared to all the documents shown in Tables 2 and
3 and Figure 4, the documents with more than four
versions occupy a much higher ratio, which is natural.
4. The number and ratio of documents with 10 versions
is particularly noticeable, constituting more than half
at some points in time. The ratio is in decrease since
we introduced the snapshot saving mode.
5. We do not observe a clear tendency for the publisheddocuments to be less edited than all the documents.
5.3. Issues
Although the number of documents with more than one
translation version is increasing steadily, including thoseedited by more than one user, further clariﬁcations are necessary to take full advantage of the corpus thus accumulated. We have not yet carried out in depth investigationsof the quality of the translations and the nature of modiﬁcations made in each log for each document. In relation toNo. & per centage of documents
Versions Apr. 09
Jun. 09
Aug. 09
Oct. 09
Dec. 09
Feb. 1020 (0)2 (18.2)2 (5.7)4 (7.4)4 (4.3)5 (4.5)3
1 (100)1 (9.1)1 (2.9)3 (5.6)7 (7.4)12 (10.9)
40 (0)1 (9.1)2 (5.7)5 (9.3)9 (9.6)9 (8.2)50 (0)1 (9.1)1 (2.8)2 (3.7)4 (4.3)6 (5.5)60 (0)2 (18.2)
6 (17.1)
8 (14.8) 11 (11.7)
15 (13.6)
70 (0)1 (8.1)1 (2.8)1 (1.9)3 (3.2)3 (2.7)80 (0)0 (0.0)3 (8.6)3 (5.6)4 (4.3)4 (3.6)
90 (0)0 (0.0)1 (2.8)1 (1.9)4 (4.3)5 (4.5)100 (0)3 (27.3) 18 (51.4) 27 (50.0) 48 (51.1)
51 (46.4)
Total
1
11
35
54
94
110
Table 5. The number of documents by the number of versions edited by multiple users (all)No. & per centage of documents
Versions
Apr. 09
Jun. 09
Aug. 09
Oct. 09
Dec. 09
Feb. 1020 (0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)3
1 (100) 1 (33.3)
1 (9.1)1 (7.1)2 (5.3)7 (14.6)
4
0 (0) 1 (33.3)
2 (18.2)
2 (14.3)
4 (10.5)
4 (8.3)50 (0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)1 (7.1)2 (5.3)4 (8.3)
60 (0) 0 (0.0)
1 (9.1)1 (7.1)3 (7.9)5 (10.4)
7
0 (0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)0 (0.0)2 (5.3)2 (4.2)80 (0) 0 (0.0)
1 (9.1)1 (7.1)2 (5.3)2 (4.2)90 (0) 0 (0.0)
1 (9.1)1 (7.1)2 (5.3)3 (6.3)100 (0) 1 (33.3)
5 (45.5)
7 (50.0) 21 (55.3) 21 (43.8)
Total
1
3
11
14
38
48
Table 6. The number of documents by the number of versions edited by multiple users (published)applications for which SDF corpora are expected to be useful, the following points, among others, should be clariﬁed
or promoted.
First, for use in improving MT or in identifying patterns
and establishing general rules of translation revision, we
can potentially use all the accumulated SDF data. In orderfor that, however, detailed examinations of the nature of
modiﬁcations are necessary. Though we are pursuing the
research in this direction (Abekawa and Kageura, 2008a;
Abekawa and Kageura, 2008b), we have not yet produced
substantial results.
Second, although the corpus accumulated on MNH is currently used by human translators registered with MNH, thenumber of users who take advantage of this function is still
relatively small. In terms of the number of documents, almost half are not revised at all, which indicates that manyusers probably do not regard revision as important or do notregard learning from the SDF corpus as something they canderive beneﬁt from. The relatively small number of documents with multiple versions and users who take part ingroup editing may imply that users or potential users are
not aware of the potential beneﬁts they can obtain from the
SDF corpus and the comparative view. This can be overcome in two respects, i.e. by helping potential users understand the functions and by improving the usability of thesystem, both of which remain to be done.

6.

Conclusions

We have introduced a way of constructing a translation
corpus (SDF corpus) that contains source texts, their drafttranslations, and their ﬁnal translations, using the transla-tion hosting site Minna no Hon’yaku (MNH), which is publicly available. The environment that MNH offers to translators provides them with a self-contained cycle of groupbased translations, which includes making draft translations, modifying and ﬁnalising them, and giving feedback
to inexperienced translators who produce draft translations.
Thus the SDF corpus can be immediately useful for translators using MNH, which promotes the natural accumulationof SDF data in its turn.
MNH was made publicly available in April 2009 and thefunctions described in this paper is fully operational andare all provided to actual users. The statistics show that thesize of the SDF corpus is increasing steadily on MNH, butalso reveal some issues which should be addressed for the
SDF corpus to be fully useful. We are now in the processof dealing with these problems.
At the time of writing, MNH only supports Japanese-toEnglish and English-to-Japanese translation, due to the limited availability of high-quality dictionaries. We have adevelopment plan to provide English-to-Chinese, Chineseto-English, Japanese-to-Chinese and Chinese-to-Japanesetranslation aid functions within 2010. Also, the interfaceof MNH is currently only in Japanese. The English interface is to be made public by April 2010.

7.

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Sciences (JSPS) grant-in-aid (A) 21240021 “Developing an integrated translation-aid site which provides
comprehensive reference sources for translators”.

Figure 5. The number and ratio of documents for the number of versions

8.

References

Abekawa, T. and Kageura, K. 2007a. QRedit: An integrated editor system to support online volunteer translators. In Digital Humanities 2007, p. 5–8.
Abekawa, T. and Kageura, K. 2007b. A translation aid system with a stratiﬁed lookup interface. In Proceedings of
ACL 2007 Demos and Poster Sessions, p. 5–8.
Abekawa, T. and Kageura, K. 2008a. Constructing a corpus that indicates patterns of modiﬁcation between draft
and ﬁnal translations by human translators. In LREC
2008.
Abekawa, T. and Kageura, K. 2008b. What prompts translators to modify draft translations? An analysis of basic
modiﬁcation patterns for use in the automatic notiﬁcation of awkwardly translated text. In Proceedings of the
3rd International Joint Conference on Natural Language
Processing, p. 241–248.
Barzilay, R. and McKeown, K. 2001. Extracting paraphrases from a parallel corpus. In Proceedings of
ACL2001, p. 50–57.
Casacuberta, F., Civera, J., Cubel, E., Lagarda, A. L., Lapalme, G., Macklovitch, E. and Vidal, E. 2009. Humaninteraction for high-quality machine translation. In Communications of the ACM, 52(10), p. 135–138.
Google 2009. google-diff-match-patch. http://code.
google.com/p/google-diff-match-patch/Lang-8 2009. http://lang-8.com/
MeLLANGE 2009. http://corpus.leeds.ac.uk/
mellange/ltc.html
Robert, I. 2008. Translation revision procedures: An
explorative study. In Boulogne, P. (ed.) Transla-tion and Its Others. Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar on Translation Studies.
http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/
papers.html
Sanseido 2001. Sanseido Grand Concise EnglishJapanese Dictionary. Tokyo: Sanseido.
Takeuchi, K., Kanehira, T., Hirao, K, Abekawa, T. andKageura, K. 2007. Flexible automatic look-up of English idiom entries in dictionaries, In MT Summit XI, p.
451–458.
Tono, Y.
2009.
The JEFLL Corpus Project.
http://jefll.corpuscobo.net/
Utiyama, M. Abekawa, T., Sumita, E. and Kageura, K.
2009. Hosting volunteer translators. In MT Summit XII.