Exploring the Impact of Centralised Translation Memory in OmegaT Translation Software The Case of the Xitsonga Language

Main Article Content

Hlamalani Dollence Baloyi

Keywords

OmegaT, Translation Equivalent, CAT Tool, Software, Terminology, Glossary

Abstract

The role of Information Communication Technology (ICT) is crucial in language development. As the technological era evolves, it is important for the language space to keep up with current trends. Computer Assisted Translation (CAT) tools are still inadequately designed for African indigenous languages, which hinders their precision, usage, and digital participation, ultimately perpetuating linguistic disparities. Using a corpus-based translation approach, the study aims to explore the impact of centralised translation memory in OmegaT translation software, specifically in the Xitsonga language. CAT applications are used to enhance, accelerate, enrich, and deepen language skills. A qualitative research approach was adopted which comprised desktop research of secondary materials. A comparative analysis was used for analysing data as it involves a direct comparison that methodically examines the OmegaT translation memories and translated documents to identify their similarities and differences. Inconsistencies were noted in the terminologies used by different translators due to the absence of centralisation of translation memories and glossaries. The lack of translation equivalents in the standardised terminology list indicates that the terms have not been included for development; it is essential to welcome new words into the corpus and offer definitions for these terms to support the evolution of language and terminology.  Centralised translation memory could lead to reduced translation time and quicker turnaround for translation projects. It is recommended that OmegaT should include a sharing feature or a repository for storing translated terms, and this should be facilitated by Department of Sport, Arts and Culture, as they carry the mandate.

Abstract 103 | PDF Downloads 52

References

Autshumato. (n.d.). The Autshumato MT Web Service. Retrieved June 20,2025, from https://mt.nwu.ac.za/#.
Balkul, H. I. (2016). ‘Translation technologies: A dilemma between translation industry and Academia’, Online Submission, 4(4), 100-108.
Barrachina, S., Bender, O., Casacuberta, F., Civera Saiz, J., Cubel, E., Khadivi, S., Lagarda A. L., Ney, H., Tomas, J., Vidal, E., & Vilar, J. (2009). ‘Statistical approaches to computer-assisted translation’, Computational Linguistics, 35(11), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2008.07-055-R2-06-29
Fink, A. (2014). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Flórez, S., & Alcina, A. (2011). ‘Catálogo de software libre para la traducción’, Revista Tradumàtica, 9, 57-73. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/tradumatica.5
Folaron, D. A. (2010). Translation tools. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (Vol. 1, pp. 429-436). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.1.tra9
Garcia, I. (2014). Computer-aided translation: Systems. In I. Garcia (Ed.), Routledge encyclopaedia of translation technology (pp. 106-125). London, New York, NY: Routledge.
Grishman, R. (1986). Computational linguistics: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611797
Gupta, R. (2024). ‘Methodological and theoretical rigor in desk research’, ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386642850_Methodological_and_Theoretical_Rigor_in_Desk_Research.
Kaluza, J. (2023). Comparative Analysis. Retrieved July 10, 2025, from https://dovetail.com/research/comparative-analysis/
Han, B. (2020). ‘Translation, from pen-and-paper to computer-assisted tools (CAT tools) and machine translation (MT)’, Proceedings, 63(1), 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2020063056
Krüger, R. (2016). ‘Contextualising computer-assisted translation tools and modelling their Usability’, Journal of Translation and Technical Communication Research, 9, 114-148.
Lincoln, YS. & Guba, EG. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications: Newbury, Park, CA. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
Mahdi, H. (2018). ‘A review of literature of computer-assisted translation’, ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328019119_A_Review_of_Literature_of_Computer-Assisted_Translation.
Mlambo, R. & Matfunjwa, M. (2024). ‘The use of technology to preserve indigenous languages of South Africa’, Literator, 45(1), 1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/lit.v45i1.2007
Nemutamvuni, M. E. (2018). Investigating the effectiveness of available tools for translating into Tshivenda. Unpublished M. A. dissertation. University of South Africa, Pretoria.
Olaare, S. (2024). ‘The role of technology in language preservation’, European Journal of Linguistics, 3, 44-56. https://doi.org/10.47941/ejl.2046
Olohan, M. (2011). ‘Translators and translation technology: The dance of agency’, Translation Studies, 4(3), 342-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2011.589656
OmegaT. OmegaT (n.d). Translation Tool Overview. Retrieved September 15, 2025, from (https://autshumato.nwu.ac.za/software/.
Osborn, D.Z. (2010). African languages in a digital age: Challenges and opportunities for Indigenous languages computing. Human Sciences Research Council: Cape Town.
Sundani, N.D. (2023). ‘South African Indigenous languages and digital technologies: Access, promotion and preservation’, International Journal of Social Science Research and Review, 6(8), 41-51. https://doi.org/10.47814/ijssrr.v6i8.1385   
Swanson, R. A. (2013). Theory building in applied disciplines. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Wang, Y. (2024). ‘The impact of technology on human translators and translation quality: A study on machine translation and computer-assisted translation tools’, English Linguistics Research, 13(1),19. https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v13n1p19
Wüster, E. (1968). The Machine Tool. An Interlingual dictionary of basic concepts. London: Technical Press.