What exactly do you mean by “augmentation”, and how can you say that translation is already an augmented activity?
One definition of “augmentation” comes from a seminal paper written by Douglas Engelbart way back in 1962. He defined augmentation as:
“increasing the capability of a man to approach a complex problem situation, to gain comprehension to suit his particular needs, and to derive solutions to problems. Increased capability in this respect is taken to mean a mixture of the following: more-rapid comprehension, better comprehension, the possibility of gaining a useful degree of comprehension in a situation that previously was too complex, speedier solutions, better solutions, and the possibility of finding solutions to problems that before seemed insoluble.” (1962: Para 1a1).
So, augmentation is the use of tools and technology to assist us latvia mobile database humans in solving complex problems.
Translation is sometimes seen as a “problem-solving” task, so use of technology to assist with more rapid comprehension and better solutions seems to fit this definition of augmentation well. In my talk, I argued that, with this definition in mind, translation has been augmented for years through the use of translation tools if you compare it with the earlier context of very little or no tool support.
You noted that among the technologies involved in translation, machine translation seems to be a wild card. Why do you think this is the case?
Again referring to Engelbart’s description, I think that we can easily accept that other tools (translation memory, term management etc.) clearly contribute to faster and better comprehension—most of the time and assuming they are well managed.