  New machine translations (MT) technologies are emerging rapidly and with
them, bold claims of achieving human parity such as: (i) the results produced
approach "accuracy achieved by average bilingual human translators" (Wu et al.,
2017b) or (ii) the "translation quality is at human parity when compared to
professional human translators" (Hassan et al., 2018) have seen the light of
day (Laubli et al., 2018). Aside from the fact that many of these papers craft
their own definition of human parity, these sensational claims are often not
supported by a complete analysis of all aspects involved in translation.
Establishing the discrepancies between the strengths of statistical approaches
to MT and the way humans translate has been the starting point of our research.
By looking at MT output and linguistic theory, we were able to identify some
remaining issues. The problems range from simple number and gender agreement
errors to more complex phenomena such as the correct translation of aspectual
values and tenses. Our experiments confirm, along with other studies
(Bentivogli et al., 2016), that neural MT has surpassed statistical MT in many
aspects. However, some problems remain and others have emerged. We cover a
series of problems related to the integration of specific linguistic features
into statistical and neural MT, aiming to analyse and provide a solution to
some of them. Our work focuses on addressing three main research questions that
revolve around the complex relationship between linguistics and MT in general.
We identify linguistic information that is lacking in order for automatic
translation systems to produce more accurate translations and integrate
additional features into the existing pipelines. We identify overgeneralization
or 'algorithmic bias' as a potential drawback of neural MT and link it to many
of the remaining linguistic issues.
