Missing the human touch? A computational stylometry analysis of GPT-4 translations of online Chinese literature

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13013v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:48:09 GMT
• Title: Missing the human touch? A computational stylometry analysis of GPT-4 translations of online Chinese literature
• Authors: Xiaofang Yao, Yong-Bin Kang, Anthony McCosker,
• Abstract summary: This study examines the stylistic features of large language models (LLMs)<n> Computational stylometry analysis shows that GPT-4 translations closely align with human translations in lexical, syntactic, and content features.<n>These findings offer insights into AI's impact on literary translation from a posthuman perspective.
• Score: 2.3861843983281625
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Existing research indicates that machine translations (MTs) of literary texts are often unsatisfactory. MTs are typically evaluated using automated metrics and subjective human ratings, with limited focus on stylistic features. Evidence is also limited on whether state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) will reshape literary translation. This study examines the stylistic features of LLM translations, comparing GPT-4's performance to human translations in a Chinese online literature task. Computational stylometry analysis shows that GPT-4 translations closely align with human translations in lexical, syntactic, and content features, suggesting that LLMs might replicate the 'human touch' in literary translation style. These findings offer insights into AI's impact on literary translation from a posthuman perspective, where distinctions between machine and human translations become increasingly blurry.

Related papers

• Can Peter Pan Survive MT? A Stylometric Study of LLMs, NMTs, and HTs in Children's Literature Translation [0.0]
  The research constructs a Peter Pan corpus, comprising 21 translations: 7 human translations (HTs), 7 large language model translations (LLMs), and 7 neural machine translation outputs (NMTs)<n>The analysis employs a generic feature set (including lexical, syntactic readability, and n-gram features) and a creative text translation (CTT-specific) feature set, which captures repetition, rhythm, translatability, and miscellaneous levels, yielding 447 linguistic features in total.<n>Results reveal that in generic features, HTs and MTs exhibit significant differences in conjunction word distributions and the ratio of 1-word-gram-Yi
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-27T09:34:40Z)
• Lost in Literalism: How Supervised Training Shapes Translationese in LLMs [51.04435855143767]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in machine translation.<n>However, translationese, characterized by overly literal and unnatural translations, remains a persistent challenge.<n>We introduce methods to mitigate these biases, including polishing golden references and filtering unnatural training instances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T12:14:45Z)
• Benchmarking GPT-4 against Human Translators: A Comprehensive Evaluation Across Languages, Domains, and Expertise Levels [20.05501751993599]
  GPT-4 achieves performance comparable to junior-level translators in terms of total errors. Unlike traditional Neural Machine Translation systems, GPT-4 maintains consistent translation quality across all evaluated language pairs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T01:12:46Z)
• How Good Are LLMs for Literary Translation, Really? Literary Translation Evaluation with Humans and LLMs [23.247387152595067]
  LITEVAL-CORPUS is a parallel corpus containing verified human translations and outputs from 9 literary machine translation systems.<n>We examine the consistency and adequacy of human evaluation schemes with various degrees of complexity.<n>Our overall evaluation indicates that published human translations consistently outperform LLM translations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T12:48:03Z)
• GPT-4 vs. Human Translators: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Translation Quality Across Languages, Domains, and Expertise Levels [18.835573312027265]
  This study comprehensively evaluates the translation quality of Large Language Models (LLMs) against human translators. We find that GPT-4 performs comparably to junior translators in terms of total errors made but lags behind medium and senior translators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T05:58:04Z)
• (Perhaps) Beyond Human Translation: Harnessing Multi-Agent Collaboration for Translating Ultra-Long Literary Texts [56.7988577327046]
  We introduce TransAgents, a novel multi-agent framework that simulates the roles and collaborative practices of a human translation company.<n>Our findings highlight the potential of multi-agent collaboration in enhancing translation quality, particularly for longer texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T05:55:08Z)
• Human vs. LMMs: Exploring the Discrepancy in Emoji Interpretation and Usage in Digital Communication [68.40865217231695]
  This study examines the behavior of GPT-4V in replicating human-like use of emojis. The findings reveal a discernible discrepancy between human and GPT-4V behaviors, likely due to the subjective nature of human interpretation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-16T08:56:52Z)
• Benchmarking Machine Translation with Cultural Awareness [50.183458829028226]
  Translating culture-related content is vital for effective cross-cultural communication. Many culture-specific items (CSIs) often lack viable translations across languages. This difficulty hinders the analysis of cultural awareness of machine translation systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T17:56:33Z)
• Exploring Human-Like Translation Strategy with Large Language Models [93.49333173279508]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in general scenarios. This work proposes the MAPS framework, which stands for Multi-Aspect Prompting and Selection. We employ a selection mechanism based on quality estimation to filter out noisy and unhelpful knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-06T19:03:12Z)
• Exploring Document-Level Literary Machine Translation with Parallel Paragraphs from World Literature [35.1398797683712]
  We show that literary translators prefer reference human translations over machine-translated paragraphs at a rate of 84%. We train a post-editing model whose output is preferred over normal MT output at a rate of 69% by experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-25T18:03:34Z)
• Translation Artifacts in Cross-lingual Transfer Learning [51.66536640084888]
  We show that machine translation can introduce subtle artifacts that have a notable impact in existing cross-lingual models. In natural language inference, translating the premise and the hypothesis independently can reduce the lexical overlap between them. We also improve the state-of-the-art in XNLI for the translate-test and zero-shot approaches by 4.3 and 2.8 points, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-09T17:54:30Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.