Finding a Place for Computer Generated Drafts in the Scripture Drafting Process

Until recently, drafting Scripture into a minority language mainly involved translators looking at majority language translations and possibly neighboring language translations, if available. Now, with the advent of tools like Scripture Forge, The Bible Translators Assistant (TBTA), FLExTrans, et al, a translation team with a set of finished Scripture, a grammatical analysis of the target language or Scripture in a related language may be able to have access to one or more computer generated drafts in the target language. But none of these Computer Generated Drafts (CGD) can just become the translation. They add a new automated vernacular dimension to the drafting process, which was previously not possible and may potentially be helpful, but they are not the translation. Questions arise as to whether having vernacular CGDs accessible to translators is actually helpful in quality and/or efficiency of translation and if helpful, what combinations of resources are best for helping Mother Tongue Translators (MTT) produce a 1st draft that is clear, accurate, and natural? Discernment is required to know how to capitalize on the strengths and avoid the pitfalls of using these generated drafts.

This paper presents quantitative data on the effect of using various CGDs with regard to consultant feedback, efficiency and comprehension. Quantitative data will be presented from MTTs' usage of various combinations of versions including CGDs and from translation consultants' checking of the quality of drafts where CGDs were used. Research comes from two translation projects, the Chuka in Kenya and Ayta Mag-Indi in the Philippines. Analysis of this data will aim to answer these three questions:

1. Which combinations of CGDs and LWC versions were used by MTTs to the best effect?
2. What observable cautions are there with incorporating CGD usage into Scripture drafting?
3. What are examples of successful integration of CGDs into an MTT team’s drafting process?