I read an article in the website of the National Defense Magazine about the prospects of having instantaneous two-way translators for U.S. troops and Iraqi citizens to converse with each other. The technology would try to reconcile "rule-based machine translation" with "statistical translation" in an attempt to facilitate a more fluid and natural dialogue between the two speaking.
I find it interesting that the development of this type of technology is being sped along by needs that arose from the current war. I wonder what the true intentions they have in producing this type of technology. Language, especially within the context of war, can have an important impact on different individuals. Many individuals are taught to believe the mentality that war is an "us vs. them" situation. They consider anything affiliated with the other side to be their enemy. Thus, it is important to dispel this misconception and depending on how language and communication are used the misconception can either be affirmed or debunked.
Intentions, then, play a large role in the execution of language and dialogue especially when attributing part of that dialogue to a machine. The machine used to translate can have unintended consequences for those using it and this may largely depend on how the developer chooses to design the machine. Since it is being developed seemingly for the purposes of war, it is hard to know how biased or unbiased the translations may be. These biases may serve goals that are solely in the interest of the military and thus have nuanced translations that can define the interaction between a soldier and and Iraqi citizen. I feel that intentions influence the way things may be phrased whether developers are conscious of it or not.
However, my hope is that the translator will allow soldiers to develop meaningful relationships with the citizens that may not necessarily be motivated by their obligations to the war. I feel that language can be a powerful tool in showing that what we may perceive to be an enemy is a person that has the same sentiments, ideals, or values as we do. It is important that someone who understands and knows the situation of the Iraqi citizen aids in the development of the translator. With help such as this, both conflict due to cultural differences can be avoided and intentions can remain balanced and hopefully serve to create relationships with each other based not on notions of war, but rather on common values of humanity.
I thought the part of your blog about the military's intentions in creating this device was really interesting. It's a difficult subject though because a slightly biased machine may help or save American soldiers. In this case, would it be right to allow the military to design a machine with a slight bias? Is it even possible to design the machine so that both Iraqi citizens and the soldiers can communicate honestly and effectively? Language is such a huge barrier for soldiers and citizens, and I think it will always continue to be. Maybe this will be the future of warfare.
ReplyDeleteIf it is able to communicate familiarly and effectively, such a translator would certainly help US troops in the field. However, my experience with translation services online leads me to believe that technology is still not able to at all replicate familiar human interaction. If the US military believes that its troops will be operating in a certain linguistic area for the long-term, it may make more sense to teach basic conversational skills to troops. Though it is not the only solution, doing so would hopefully narrow the huge gap of understanding and communication between the two distrustful sides.
ReplyDeleteJulian, this is a cool post about how language technology can be used to connect with Iraqis. There is potential in such software, but I definitely agree with Jess that existing software is not "smart" enough to make key distinctions and understand idiomatic expressions. I think the US should instead work on developing the language skills of native-born speakers of target languages (Mandarin, Arabic, Russian, Portuguese, etc.) - and thus draw on the strengths of its large immigrant population. Not only will native speakers be able to better understand the nuances in language, but they will be a more familiar face on the ground, and therefore more able to create connections with the Iraqis.
ReplyDelete