Discourse factor of semantic uncertainty in reverse machine translation of media texts

Abstract

The article is devoted to the study of semantic uncertainty in the texts of legal and media discourses using online programs. The object of the study is conflict factors caused by semantic uncertainty in problem areas. An assessment and description of problem areas in machine translation of media texts was carried out, taking into account lexical ambiguity. The prerequisites for possible conflict situations when translating texts on legal and environmental topics are described. In achieving this goal, both traditional linguistic and innovative methods of analysis (use of artificial intelligence technologies) were used. The characteristics of the philosophical category of uncertainty are given according to the following methodology: 1) assessment of the semantic uncertainty of reverse machine translation texts, taking into account the discursive factor; 2) comparison of legislative and media texts for their similarity to the original after machine translation. The comparative analysis took into account the following parameters: the total number of words in the texts; similarity of texts in percentage terms; presence of various fragments. It is shown that discursive and linguistic means of realizing semantic uncertainty have a significant impact on the reader’s perception of the text. A comparison of two discourses of the same thematic focus on environmental management revealed the influence of the context (discourse) and the intermediary language on the degree of translatability of the text. It has been established that semantic uncertainty and tension zones as conflict-generating factors depend on the quality of translation programs. The study took into account possible errors associated with the limited capabilities of the online programs used. Prospects for studying problem areas in reverse machine translation include expanding sources of empirical material, involving other computer-assisted translation systems, and the possibility of applying research results in an expanded context of “potential conflict.”