| |
1. |
Ahn, B. and Y. Ma. 2015. A Coh-metrix analysis of elementary school English textbooks. English 21 28(3). 435-460.
|
2. |
Ahrenberg, L. 2017. Comparing machine translation and human translation: A case study. Proceedings of The First Workshop on Human-Informed Translation and Interpreting Technology (HiT-IT), 21–28.
|
3. |
Aiken, M. and S. Balan. 2011. An analysis of Google Translate accuracy. Translation Journal 16(2), 12-34. |
4. |
Aryadoust, V. 2016. Understanding the growth of ESL paragraph writing skills and its relationships with linguistic features. Educational Psychology 36(10), 1742-1770.
|
5. |
Bellos, D. 2011. Is That a Fish in Your Ear? Translation and the Meaning of Everything. New York: Faber and Faber. |
6. |
Castelvecchi, D. 2016. Deep learning boosts Google translate tool. Nature. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/news/deep-learning-boosts-google-translate-tool-1.20696
|
7. |
Colina, S. 2009. Further evidence for a functionalist approach to translation quality evaluation. Target 21(2), 235-264.
|
8. |
CORREA, M. 2014. Leaving the ‘peer’ out of peer-editing: Online translators as a pedagogical tool in the Spanish as a second language classroom. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning 7(1), 1-20.
|
9. |
Costa-jussá, M., M. Farres and J. Pons. 2012. Machine translation in medicine: A quality analysis of statistical machine translation in the medical domain. Paper presented at the Advanced Research in Scientific Areas. |
10. |
Ducar, C. and D. H. Schocket. 2018. Machine translation and the L2 classroom: Pedagogical solutions for making peace with Google Translate. Foreign Language Annals 51(4), 779-795.
|
11. |
Enkin, E. and E. Mejías-Bikandi. 2016. Using online translators in the second language classroom: Ideas for advanced-level Spanish. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning 9(1), 138-158.
|
12. |
Ferris, D. R., H. Liu, A. Sinha and M. Senna. 2013. Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 22(3), 307-329.
|
13. |
Garcia, I. 2010. Is machine translation ready yet? Target-International Journal of Translation Studies 22(1), 7-21.
|
14. |
Garcia, I. and M. I. Pena. (2011). Machine translation-assisted language learning: Writing for beginners. Computer Assisted Language Learning 24(5), 471-487.
|
15. |
Google. 2012, April 26. Breaking down the language barrier - six years in. Retrieved from https://translate.googleblog.com/2012/04/breaking-down-language-barriersix-years.html |
16. |
Graesser, A. C. and D. S. McNamara. 2011. Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science 3(2), 371-398.
|
17. |
Graesser, A. C., D. S. McNamara, M. M. Louwerse and Z. Cai. 2004. Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36(2), 193-202.
|
18. |
Groves, M. and K. Mundt. 2015. Friend or foe? Google translate in language for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes 37, 112-121.
|
19. |
Hampshire, S. and C. Porta Salvia. (2010). Translation and the internet: Evaluating the quality of free online machine translators. Quaderns: Revista De Traducci 17, 197-209. |
20. |
I. Solnyshkina, M. V., E. Harkova and S. A. Kiselnikov. 2014. Comparative Coh-metrix analysis of reading comprehension texts: Unified (Russian) state exam in English vs Cambridge first certificate in English. English Language Teaching 7(12), 65.
|
21. |
Jeon, M-G. and I-J. Lim. 2009. A Corpus-based Analysis of middle school English 1 textbooks with Coh-Metrix. English Language Teaching 21(4), 265-292.
|
22. |
Kaltenbacher, M. 2000. Aspects of universal grammar in human versus machine translation. In A. Chesterman, N. San Savador and Y. Gambier eds., Translation in Context, 221-230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
|
23. |
Kapadya, A. 2018, Sep 20. Bringing hope to a refugee family, using Google Translate [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.blog.google/products/translate/refugee-family-translate/ |
24. |
Kim, J. 2014. Continuity problems of elementary and secondary English education: Sequence analysis of English textbooks. Language Research 50(1), 161-184. |
25. |
Kim, J-K. 2018. A Corpus-based investigation of reading passages in the national assessment of educational achievement English test using coh-metrix. Secondary English Education 11(2), 27-51. |
26. |
Kirchhoff, K., A. M. Turner, A. Axelrod and F. Saavedra. 2011. Application of statistical machine translation to public health information: A feasibility study. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 18(4), 473-478.
|
27. |
Krishnamoorthy, K., F. Lu and T. Mathew. 2007. A parametric bootstrap approach for ANOVA with unequal variances: Fixed and random models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 51(12), 5731-5742.
|
28. |
Kroulek, A. 2017, Feb 28. A Translation Showdown: Man vs Machine Translation. Retrieved February 27, 2019, from https://www.k-international.com |
29. |
LaFlair, G. T., J. Egbert and L. Plonsky. 2015. Bootstrapping. In L. Plonsky ed., Advancing Quantitative Methods in Second Language Research, 135-150. Routledge. |
30. |
Lee, J. 2018. A Coh-metrix analysis of lexical, syntactic and discourse aspects in the newspaper articles of Korean and British university students. The Modern English Education Society 19(4), 17-26.
|
31. |
Lewis-Kraus, G. 2016, Dec 14. The great A.I. awakening. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1848431038 |
32. |
McCarthy, P. M., C. Hall, N. D. Duran, M. Doiuchi, Y. Fujiwara, B. Duncan and D. S. McNamara. 2011. Analyzing journal abstracts written by Japanese, American, and British scientists using Coh-metrix, and the Gramulator. The ESPecialist: Research in Language for Specific Purposes 30(2). 141-173. |
33. |
McNamara, D. S., A. C. Graesser, P. M. McCarthy and Z. Cai. 2014. Coh-Metrix: Automated Evaluation of Text and Discourse. Boston: Cambridge University Press.
|
34. |
Plonsky, L. 2013. Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35(4), 655–687.
|
35. |
Plonsky, L. 2014. Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990–2010): A methodological synthesis and call for reform, Modern Language Journal 98(1), 450–470.
|
36. |
Polio, C. and H. Yoon. 2018a. The reliability and validity of automated tools for examining variation in syntactic complexity across genres. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 28(1), 165-188.
|
37. |
Ramati, I. and A. Pinchevski. 2018. Uniform multilingualism: A media genealogy of Google translate. New Media & Society 20(7), 2550-2565.
|
38. |
Rodreguez-Castro, M., S. Salas and T. Benson. 2018. To Google translate™ or not? Newcomer Latino communities in the middle. Middle School Journal 49(2), 3-9.
|
39. |
Sheppard, F. 2011. Medical writing in English: The problem with Google translate. La Presse Medicale 40(6), 565-566.
|
40. |
Tsai, S-C. 2019. Using Google Translate in EFL drafts: A preliminary investigation, Computer Assisted Language Learning 32(5-6), 510-526.
|
41. |
Turner, A. M., M. Bergman, M. Brownstein, K. Cole and K. Kirchhoff. 2014. A comparison of human and machine translation of health promotion materials for public health practice: Time, costs, and quality. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 20(5), 523-529.
|
42. |
Turovsky, B. 2016, April 28. Ten years of Google translate [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.blog.google/products/translate/ten-years-of-google-translate/ |
43. |
Wang, Z. and S-A. Lee. 2018. Machine translation versus human translation: The case of English-to-Chinese translation of relative clauses. Language and Information 22(1), 175.
|
44. |
Ye, D. 2013. A Coh-metrix analysis of language varieties between the journal articles of Chinese and American scientists. International Journal of English Linguistics 3(4), 63-70.
|